Monday, October 14, 2013

The Earth is Not Moving

Before Copernican heliocentric indoctrination any child will look up at the sky and notice that the sun, moon, and stars all revolve around a stationary Earth. All empirical evidence from our perspective clearly shows that we are fixed and everything rotates around us. We feel motionless and experience the sun, moon, stars and planets spinning around us. To suspend this common sense geocentric perspective and assume that it's actually the Earth revolving beneath us daily while rotating around the sun yearly is quite a theoretical leap.

"What strikes you as being some thoughts that people would have if - in the short space of a few weeks - the universally held conviction that the Earth rotates on an axis daily and orbits the sun annually were exposed as an unscientific deception? Keep in mind that a rotating, orbiting earth is not counted as a mere hypothesis or even a theory anywhere in the world today. Oh no. Rather, this concept is an unquestioned 'truth'; an established 'fact' in all books and other media everywhere, church media included. Copernicanism, in short, is a concept that is protected in a bunker under a 50 foot thick ceiling of solid 'scientific' concrete. It is meant to be impregnable. It is a concept that has become ensconced in men’s minds as the indestructible cornerstone of enlightened modern man’s knowledge. Virtually all people everywhere have been taught to believe - and do believe - that this concept is based on objective science and dispassionate secular reasoning." -Marshall Hall, "Exposing the Copernican Deception"

"Every experiment ever designed to detect the motion of the earth has failed to detect earth's motion and/or distinguish it from relative counter motion of the universe." -Mark Wyatt, "Is Geocentricism Possible?"

Right up through the 20th century many attempts have been made to try and prove that heliocentricity is true and geocentricity is false. All such attempts have failed and only reinforced geocentricity. The most-well known of these is the Michelson-Morley experiment which attempted to measure the change in speed of light due to the assumed motion of Earth through space. They measured in every different direction in various places on the Earth's surface and failed to detect any significant change whatsoever. The Michelson-Gale experiment also failed to prove heliocentricity but was able to measure the movement of the aether/firmament around the Earth accurate to within 2%. An experiment known as "Airey's Failure" involves filling a telescope with water to slow down the speed of light inside. Usually telescopes must be slightly tilted to get the starlight down the axis of the tube supposedly due to "Earth's speed around the sun." Airey discovered that actually the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so no change was necessary. This demonstrated that the stars move relative to a stationary Earth and not the other way around; if it was the telescope moving he would have to change the angle.

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” -Cosmologist George Ellis, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally"

In order to save the dying heliocentric theory from the conclusive geocentric experiments performed by Michelson, Morley, Gale, Sagnac, Kantor and others, establishment master-mind Albert Einstein created his Special Theory of Relativity which in one philosophical swoop banished the absolute aether/firmament from scientific study and replaced it with a form of relativism which allowed for heliocentricism and geocentricism to hold equal merit. If there is no universal aetheric medium within which all things exist, then philosophically one can postulate complete relativism with regard to the movement of two objects (such as the Earth and sun). Nowadays, just like the theory of heliocentricism, Einstein's theory of relativity is accepted worldwide as gospel truth, even though he himself admitted geocentricism is equally justifiable:

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems." -Albert Einstein

"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance." -Cosmologist Fred Hoyle

If one accepts the unintuitive, but very imaginative heliocentric model, then one accepts (even though it goes against observation, experimental evidence and common sense) that the Earth is actually spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the known Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour!

I'd like to know if we're really being subject to all those forces/motions, then why hasn't anyone in all of history ever felt it? How is it that all the centrifugal, gravitational, inertial and kinematic forces somehow cancel each other out perfectly so that no one has ever felt the slightest bit of motion or resistance? Why aren't there world-wide perturbations of our smooth rotation after earthquakes or meteor strikes? Why can I still feel the slightest breeze on my face, but not the air displacement from all this motion? If the Earth is spinning beneath us, why can't I just hover in a helicopter, wait until my destination reaches me, and then land when it comes?

Most people answer (though they can't explain how) that this is because the Earth's atmosphere supposedly rotates precisely along with the Earth. But if that's the case then heliocentric dogmatists run into a whole other host of problems. For instance, if both the Earth and its atmosphere are spinning 1,000 miles per hour West to East, then why don't pilots need to make 1,000 mph compensation acceleration when flying East to West? If thousand mile per hour atmosphere is constantly flowing Eastward, why don't North/South bound pilots have to set diagonal courses to compensate? If thousand mile per hour atmosphere is constantly flowing Eastward, how do you explain the casual yet unpredictable movement of clouds, wind patterns and weather formations every which way? If the atmosphere is constantly being pulled along with the Earth's rotation, then why can I feel the slightest Westward breeze but not the Earth's 1,000 mile per hour Eastward spin?

"In short, the sun, moon, and stars are actually doing precisely what everyone throughout all history has seen them do. We do not believe what our eyes tell us because we have been taught a counterfeit system which demands that we believe what has never been confirmed by observation or experiment. That counterfeit system demands that the Earth rotate on an 'axis' every 24 hours at a speed of over 1000 MPH at the equator. No one has ever, ever, ever seen or felt such movement (nor seen or felt the 67,000MPH speed of the Earth's alleged orbit around the sun ... or its 500,000 MPH alleged speed around a galaxy ... or its retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!). Remember, no experiment has ever shown the earth to be moving. Add to that the fact that the alleged rotational speed we've all been taught as scientific fact MUST decrease every inch or mile one goes north or south of the equator, and it becomes readily apparent that such things as accurate aerial bombing in WWII (down a chimney from 25,000 feet with a plane going any direction at high speed) would have been impossible if calculated on an earth moving below at several hundred MPH and changing constantly with the latitude." -Marshall Hall, "A Small, Young Universe After All"

Experiments have been performed firing canons in all cardinal directions to check for Earth's rotation. If the Earth was really spinning as the heliocentric model suggests then the East-firing cannonballs should fall significantly farther than all others and the West-firing cannonballs should fall significantly closer than all others. In actual fact, however, regardless of which direction one fires a cannon, North, South, East, or West, the distance covered is always the same."When sitting in a rapidly-moving railway carriage, let a spring-gun be fired forward, or in the direction in which the train is moving. Again, let the same gun be fired, but in the opposite direction; and it will be found that the ball or other projectile will always go farther in the first case than in the latter. If a person leaps backwards from a horse in full gallop, he cannot jump so great a distance as he can by jumping forward. Leaping from a moving sledge, coach, or other object, backwards or forwards, the same results are experienced. Many other practical cases could be cited to show that any body projected from another body in motion, does not exhibit the same behaviour as it does when projected from a body at rest. Nor are the results the same when projected in the same direction as that in which the body moves, as when projected in the opposite direction; because, in the former case, the projected body receives its momentum from the projectile force, plus that given to it by the moving body; and in the latter case, this momentum, minus that of the moving body. Hence it would be found that if the earth is moving rapidly from west to east, a cannon fired in a due easterly direction would send a ball to a greater distance than it would if fired in a due westerly direction. But the most experienced artillerymen - many of whom have had great practice, both at home and abroad, in almost every latitude - have declared that no difference whatever is observable. That in charging and pointing their guns, no difference in the working is ever required. Gunners in war ships have noticed a considerable difference in the results of their firing from guns at the bow, when sailing rapidly towards the object fired at, and when firing from guns placed at the stern while sailing away from the object: and in both cases the results are different to those observed when firing from a ship at perfect rest. These details of practical experience are utterly incompatible with the supposition of a revolving earth." -Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy"

By removing Earth from the motionless center of the Universe, these dark philosophers (Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Galileo, Einstein) have moved us physically and metaphysically from a place of supreme importance to one of complete nihilistic indifference. If the Earth is the center of the Universe, then the ideas of God, creation, and a purpose for human existence are resplendent. But if the Earth is just one of billions of planets revolving around billions of stars in billions of galaxies, then the ideas of God, creation, and a specific purpose for Earth and human existence become highly implausible.

"The heliocentric theory, by putting the sun at the center of the universe ... made man appear to be just one of a possible host of wanderers drifting through a cold sky. It seemed less likely that he was born to live gloriously and to attain paradise upon his death. Less likely, too, was it that he was the object of God’s ministrations." -Morris Kline

By removing Earth from the motionless center of the Universe, the entirety of astrology, a science of consciousness coveted and used obsessively by the elite, is made null and void. If the Earth is the center of the Universe and all the planets (ancient gods) revolve around us, then birth charts, alignments, and astrology are measurable, calculable, repeatable, and thus scientifically verifiable. But if the Earth is just one of billions of planets revolving around billions of stars in billions of galaxies, then astrology disappears into the realms of pseudo-science believed by our ignorant ancestors.

"Trust your eyes and your cameras! They have no reason to deceive you about whether the stars are going around nightly! Then get it in your mind: This single fact surrounding star trails that has been photographed thousands of times and cannot be denied must be explained away by the Theoretical Science Establishment. All of the factless allegations - a rotating and orbiting Earth; billions of light year distances to the stars; a 15 billion year old universe; the whole Big Bang Paradigm; all of the alleged evolution of the universe, earth, and mankind; ...that is to say: all of modern evolution-based cosmology controlling "knowledge" today...all of it... is completely undone if the stars are doing what cameras show they are doing, namely, going around the Earth nightly ... If you can do so for a few minutes, just lay aside the Copernican indoctrination that accompanies such pictures and take a good hard look at these photographs of something that really, really happens every single night. Do you see what I see? I see all the visible stars in the northern skies going around the North Star in perfect circles. In other words, I see all the stars which these time exposures have recorded actually going around that navigational star that God put there for us in the Northern Hemisphere. Remember: the first two pictures are eight hour exposures. Again, look closely and you can see the third of a circle in the center and in the next star trail or so. This means that each star circles in one 24 hour day. The same thing is captured in circumpolar photos taken in the Southern Hemisphere." -Marshall Hall, "The Size and Structure of the Universe"

We live in a yin-yang world of duality where everything and its opposite exist together in perfect proportions like male/female, good/evil, hot/cold, knowledge/ignorance, inhale/exhale, dark/light, day/night and of course, sun and moon. Half our lives (the daytime) are ruled by the sun and half our lives (the nighttime) are ruled by the moon. When you look up at the sun and the moon they are in perfect proportion to one another as exemplified during an eclipse. But thanks to a total eclipse of the mind these nihilistic cosmologists have indoctrinated world-wide generations of people to believe Earth itself and all the planets revolve around the sun. That the sun is much larger and farther away, the moon is much smaller and closer, and it's simply our coincidental perspective here on Earth that makes them appear the same size. They have convinced us that the very Earth on which we stand is spinning beneath our feet. So next time you're wondering why it's so difficult to awaken your friends and family to the Atlantean conspiratorial matrix, consider how deep the establishment indoctrination really is, and how easy it is to convince people that up is down and down is up.

216
comments:

Very cool explanation!If Earth were spinning, we could theoretically levitate straight up & wait and land on a different spot.

Which brings to mind what we did in my college days in the elevator--suppose you were riding on an elevator, and it was free-falling, then what if you were to jump up right before the elevator landed--you would theoretically be safe because you would be suspendedn in midair the moment the floor hit the bottom.

We "experimented"--more like for fun when we were going down on the elevators, we would jump up, and then we would be suspended for a second in mid-air. One particular college elevator descended really fast, so we were like suspended for 2 seconds in midair.

That's about all I remember about college, other than learning how to play Spades & Hearts.

"For instance, if both the Earth and its atmosphere are spinning 1,000 miles per hour West to East, then why don't pilots need to make 1,000 mph compensation acceleration when flying East to West? If thousand mile per hour atmosphere is constantly flowing Eastward, why don't North/South bound pilots have to set diagonal courses to compensate? If thousand mile per hour atmosphere is constantly flowing Eastward, how do you explain the casual yet unpredictable movement of clouds, wind patterns and weather formations every which way? If the atmosphere is constantly being pulled along with the Earth's rotation, then why can I feel the slightest Westward breeze but not the Earth's 1,000 mile per hour Eastward spin?"

You will only feel a breeze or have to fly faster if the atmosphere is moving relative to the Earth. Pilots would only have to fly faster if the Earth was moving beneath them but the atmosphere was not. As long as both the Earth's surface and the atmosphere are moving at roughly the same speed, you will neither feel an appreciable breeze nor have to fly faster.

Thanks for the comment and story Anonymous. For Ben, so you think that if the Earth and atmosphere are moving together at 1,000 mph East, that an East or West flying plane would experience equal resistance? How do you figure that? What about a cannonball fired in every cardinal direction, would you expect them to cover the same distance?

During the period of the Crimean War, the subject of gunnery, in connection with the earth's rotation, was one which occupied the attention of many philosophers, artillery officers and statesmen. During this time Prime Minister Lord Palmerston wrote the following letter to Lord Panmure, the Secretary for War:

December 20th, 1857.

My dear Panmure.

There is an investigation which it would be important and at the same time easy to make, and that is, whether the rotation of the earth on its axis has any effect on the curve of a cannon-ball in its flight. One should suppose that it has, and that while the cannon-ball is flying in the air, impelled by the gunpowder in a straight line from the cannon's mouth, the ball would not follow the rotation of the earth in the same manner which it would do if lying at rest on the earth's surface. If this be so, a ball fired in the meridional direction--that is to say, due south or due north--ought to deviate to the west of the object at which it was aimed, because during the time of flight, that object will have gone to the east somewhat faster than the cannon-ball will have done. In like manner, a ball fired due east, ought to fly less far upon the earth's surface than a ball fired due west, the charges being equal, the elevation the same, and the atmosphere perfectly still. It must be remembered, however, that the ball, even after it has left the cannon's mouth, will retain the motion from west to east which it had before received by the rotation of the earth on whose surface it was; and it is possible, therefore, that, except at very long ranges, the deviations above mentioned may in practice turn out to be very small, and not deserving the attention of an artilleryman. The trial might be easily made in any place in which a free circle of a mile or more radius could be obtained; and a cannon placed in the centre of that circle, and fired alternately north, south, east, and west, with equal charges, would afford the means of ascertaining whether each shot flew the same distance or not.

"Yours sincerely,

"PALMERSTON."

So Ben you really think that the Earth beneath your feet and the atmosphere around you is spinning by at approximately 1,000 mph, we're revolving around the sun at 67,000 mph, rotating around the galaxy at 500,000 mph, and speeding through the universe at 670,000,000 mph and nobody has ever felt a thing? What mechanism do you propose cancels out all those centrifugal, gravitational, inertial, and kinematic forces and motions so that we feel always feel absolutely still? Why has no one ever felt the spinning of the Earth/atmosphere, but we can feel the slightest breeze. And why aren't there world-wide perturbations of our smooth rotation after earthquakes or meteor strikes?

Just because the Earth does not rotate, does not guarantee that there is a loving, kind, or caring God. I agree with the assertion that the Copernican revolution is a mistake, but I do not see the need to state that there is a God who made it so.

"For Ben, so you think that if the Earth and atmosphere are moving together at 1,000 mph East, that an East or West flying plane would experience equal resistance? How do you figure that? What about a cannonball fired in every cardinal direction, would you expect them to cover the same distance?"

Of course. If both the atmosphere and the Earth are moving at the same speed, then from the perspective of an airplane, they both might as well be still. The wind might blow the plane 1000 miles in one direction, but the Earth will have moved 1000 miles in that same direction, so it makes no difference. The point is that the plane is measuring its location in relation to the Earth, a moving reference frame. If we were interested in the position of the plane relative to the Sun, then such things would become important, but we're not.

The issue of the cannonball is exactly the same with respect to wind resistance. However, once you get into the question of moving in any cardinal direction rather than simply east-west, the Coriolis Effect begins to come into play and will alter the trajectory of a cannonball fired in an North or South direction; this has nothing to do with wind, though. It's still related to the question of a rotating Earth, and is itself an interesting result of a rotating reference frame.

I won't pretend to be an expert on this one, but I happened to recall from my reading about the Indian Ocean tsunami a few years ago that it actually did affect the Earth's rotation (decreased the length of the day by 2.68 microseconds).

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/jan/HQ_05011_earthquake.html

Of course that's from NASA, but if you don't trust them, I saw a few other similar sources linked to on the Wikipedia page for the tsunami, although I did not check them all for NWO ties.

For Anonymous, you're right that the two don't necessarily follow, but wouldn't you agree that a fixed Earth around which the whole Universe rotates denotes a certain specialness and purposefulness to our home here? Whereas a random big bang evolution of billions of galaxies, stars, and planets makes Earth and humanity seem like nothing special, just evolutionary coincidence and cosmic accident. Heliocentricism, besides being provably false, is a nihilistic and atheistic philosophy, while Geocentricism, besides being provably true, is life affirming and uplifting.

For Ben, if the atmosphere is somehow being pulled precisely along with the rotation of the Earth, then how is it that clouds and wind are constantly flying every which way? In fact at varying layers of the atmosphere cloud and winds directions are not uniform at all and often travel at right angles to each other simultaneously. How is this possible if the entire atmosphere is supposedly being pulled along so precisely with the rotation of the Earth?

"If the atmosphere rushes forward from west to east continually, we are again obliged to conclude that whatever floats or is suspended in it, at any altitude, must of necessity partake of its eastward motion. A piece of cork, or any other body floating in still water, will be motionless, but let the water be put in motion, in any direction whatever, and the floating bodies will move with it, in the same direction and with the same velocity. Let the experiment be tried in every possible way, and these results will invariable follow. Hence if the earth's atmosphere is in constant motion from west to east, all the different strata which are known to exist in it, and all the various kinds of clouds and vapours which float in it must of mechanical necessity move rapidly eastwards. But what is the fact? If we fix upon any star as a standard or datum outside the visible atmosphere, we may sometimes observe a stratum of clouds going for hours together in a direction the very opposite to that in which the earth is supposed to be moving.

Not only may a stratum of clouds be seen moving rapidly from east to west, but at the same moment other strata may often be seen moving from north to south, and from south to north. It is a fact well known to aeronauts, that several strata of atmospheric air are often moving in as many different directions at the same time. It is a knowledge of this fact which leads an experienced aeronaut, when desiring to rise in a balloon, and to go in a certain direction, not to regard the manner in which the wind is blowing on the immediate surface of the earth, because he knows that at a greater altitude, it may be going at right angles, or even in opposite and in various ways simultaneously. To ascertain whether and at what altitude a current is blowing in the desired direction, small, and so-called "pilot-balloons" are often sent up and carefully observed in their ascent. If during the passage of one of these through the variously moving strata, it is seen to enter a current which is going in the direction desired by the aëronaut, the large balloon is then ballasted in such a manner that it may ascend at once to the altitude of such current, and thus to proceed on its journey.

On almost any moonlight and cloudy night, different strata may be seen not only moving in different directions but, at the same time, moving with different velocities; some floating past the face of the moon rapidly and uniformly, and others passing gently along, sometimes becoming stationary, then starting fitfully into motion, and often standing still for minutes together. Some of those who have ascended in balloons for scientific purposes have recorded that as they have rapidly passed through the atmosphere, they have gone though strata differing in temperature, in density, and in hygrometric, magnetic, electric, and other conditions. These changes have been noticed both in ascending and descending, and in going for miles together at the same altitude. -Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy"

"How is this possible if the entire atmosphere is supposedly being pulled along so precisely with the rotation of the Earth?"

It isn't being pulled along at "precisely" the same speed. That's a simplification that you yourself introduced. There are of course eddies and individual currents, just as there are in a river. If you watch two leaves in a river, their relative position of course does not remain constant at all; sometimes they might be moving closer, sometimes farther apart, but the existence of variations does not disprove the overall pattern any more than the existence of daily temperature variations disproves the existence of winter.

Here’s an example. Imagine for a moment a luxury cruise ship that is equipped with a big pool. This cruise ship is moving at 100 mph relative to the Earth. If I get into the pool, am I going to have to swim at 100mph to keep up? Of course not; the water in the pool will be carried along by the cruise ship, and I will be carried along with it, just like the air near the ground is carried along by the motion of the Earth.

If we take the pool and introduce a few massaging jets like they have in hot tubs to introduce a few currents, would I suddenly have to swim at 100mph? Of course not.

Really? If it's not being pulled at absolutely precisely the same speed, then surely someone at some point throughout history would feel the motion or resistance of the Earth/atmosphere, but we don't ever feel even the slightest inkling that the Earth/atmosphere are supposedly spinning around at such great speeds. That's why I say it must be "precisely" the same speed or else your argument is proven false by experience. And in fact your argument is proven false by experience regardless because as I said clouds and wind patterns have been repeatedly observed and measured to go in different velocities and different directions (often opposite directions) simultaneously! You haven't addressed this point.

There are of course eddies and individual currents, just as there are in a river.

Clouds and wind patterns often go in opposite directions simultaneously. You will never see an eddy flowing steadily up-current in a river! The flow of the river is far too powerful to allow a random eddy to flow up-current, but this is exactly what you're saying happens with our atmosphere, so your example is moot.

On the 27th November, 1839, the sky being very clear, the planet Venus was seen near the zenith, notwithstanding the brightness of the meridian sun. It enabled us to observe the higher stratum of clouds to be moving in an exactly opposite direction to that of the wind--a circumstance which is frequently recorded in our meteorological journal both in the north-east and south-east trades, and has also often been observed by former voyagers. Captain Basil Hall witnessed it from the summit of the Peak of Teneriffe; and Count Strzelechi, on ascending the volcanic mountain of Kiranea, in Owhyhee, reached at 4000 feet an elevation above that of the trade wind, and experienced the influence of an opposite current of air of a different hygrometric and thermometric condition. . . . Count Strzelechi further informed me of the following seemingly anomalous circumstance--that at the height of 6000 feet he found the current of air blowing at right angles to both the lower strata, also of a different hygrometric and thermometric condition, but warmer than the inter-stratum. Such a state of the atmosphere is compatible only with the fact which other evidence has demonstrated, that the earth is at rest." -Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy"

The Earth's spin does not affect the atmosphere because it is moving through a vacuum and there is no friction. We cannot feel the spin of the Earth because it is not accelerating or decelerating, just like when you are travelling in a car at a constant speed and you throw a tennis ball in to the air, it lands back in your hand. It does not fly back in to your chest.

At least in finnish artillery we had to take into account "kiertopoikkeama" rotation deflexion maybe in english. Meaning earth's rotation when the cannonball was flying in air. I think it was very little maybe 10 or 20 meters.

I was trained to calculate the data for the gun crews to direct their weapons correctly. Sorry for my bad english. Thank you for this interesting blog.

I would like to add that I am not speaking with any certainty, just from my limited high school physics education. It just seems counter-intuitive that the entire universe revolves around this tiny planet, and I don't think that it reduces the significance or meaning of life on Earth. In fact, I find it incredibly awe-inspiring that so much life could have proliferated on our tiny little corner of the universe, and suggests to me that life elsewhere is not only very likely but inevitable.

Wonderful post, Eric. A new step on the ongoing road of uncovering the truth. I wrote about many of the scientific aspects in my blog, but the topic of (the effects of the Heliocentric belief on man's conception of his existence)is a much richer one.

"Really? If it's not being pulled at absolutely precisely the same speed, then surely someone at some point throughout history would feel the motion or resistance of the Earth/atmosphere"

You do, it's called wind. Exactly as if you're coasting downstream in a kayak and stuck your hand in the water, you would feel the slight perturbations caused by not all the water moving at the same velocity as you. That doesn't mean the river as a whole is not moving downstream.

"You will never see an eddy flowing steadily up-current in a river! The flow of the river is far too powerful to allow a random eddy to flow up-current, but this is exactly what you're saying happens with our atmosphere, so your example is moot."

You will see something similar, depending on your reference frame. That's my whole point. If you're watching from the riverbank, it's all moving downriver (i.e. forwards), but if you're in a kayak rowing downstream, some parts will be moving forwards and some backwards relative to your position. Watch some leaves the next time you're kayaking. You'll observe exactly this effect. Some move faster, some slower.

It just seems counter-intuitive that the entire universe revolves around this tiny planet

It seems counter-intuitive to me to assume the Earth beneath our feet is moving when observation and all experimental evidence says it isn't. But to each his own :)

You will see something similar, depending on your reference frame. That's my whole point. If you're watching from the riverbank, it's all moving downriver (i.e. forwards), but if you're in a kayak rowing downstream, some parts will be moving forwards and some backwards relative to your position.

As Druv has pointed out many times, this relativistic philosophy and resulting pseudo-science is what we get for taking the absolute aether / firmament out of cosmology. The aether has been measured and confirmed to exist in the Sagnac, Michelson and Gale experiments, but still Einstein's relativity theory (which abandons the aether) reigns supreme in establishment thought and allows for the kind of philosophical leaps Ben's taking.

Without the absolute aether / firmament (i.e. the One non-thing within which all things exist) relativity theory makes all perspectives equally valid. Thanks to Einstein, Ben can confidently ignore his experience of a fixed Earth beneath him, ignore experiments proving what common sense tells him, and make relativistic excuses for the clouds and wind.

Look at the pictures of star trails I posted. The stars all rotate around us once every 24 hours in perfect circles. Michelson-Morley and Airey's experiment proved that, just as it appears, it's the stars moving perfect circles around Earth and not the other way around. Here's another experiment that proves it:

"Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube and the moment the star appears in the first tube let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the second tube when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the second tube towards the first tube would be required for the star to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results--the star will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube which the difference in position of one yard had previously required. But as no such difference in the direction of the tube is required, the conclusion is unavoidable, that in six months a given meridian upon the earth's surface does not move a single yard, and therefore, that the earth has not the slightest degree of orbital motion." -Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy"

Thats refreshing to think that the Earth is much different than just about anyone thinks. I have recently discovered a less important but still interesting conspiracy. The invention of the GUN. In our history it has been recorded that the handgun was invented around 1189 but, i noticed a persian warrior holding a pistol in a old persian painting. I forgot when but the painting was 50-150 years older than the claimed date of the invention of the gun, which lead me to the theory that dates involving inventing of technologies cannot be verified and there is no way to know when anything was created... Thanks- AG

From your analysis, anybody situated (or a machine collecting information) on any one of billions of other planets could also infer that THEY were in fact at the center of the universe. Since there are no well defined boundaries of space, you cannot find your exact position within it, and as long as there are stars on all sides, similar star trails would be observed on any rotating planet.Given the number of stars in the universe, odds are that there HAS to be another planet with its axis situated directly under a bright "North" star.

Additionally, you can observe other planets rotating, so it is only logical to conclude that our planet is rotating as well. Your article, while well written, clearly is based on ulterior motives (proof in the existence of a god) and the theory expressed has been put to bed a LONG time ago. I would also like to note that both studies with dates to reference were conducted well over 80 years ago, long before the technological revolution.

That's refreshing to think that the Earth is much different than just about anyone thinks.

Your open mind is refreshing to me. Too many people knee-jerk defend their Copernican indoctrinations in the face of conclusive evidence and common sense.

Since there are no well defined boundaries of space, you cannot find your exact position within it, and as long as there are stars on all sides, similar star trails would be observed on any rotating planet.

This comment is yet another casualty of Einstein's relativity and dismissal of the aether. Did you see the last experiment I just posted? You can perform this yourself and prove that Earth has absolutely no orbital motion. After 6 months, based on Copernican lies, the Earth should be millions of miles away, but when you repeat the experiment, the same stars will be in the exact same place.

Additionally, you can observe other planets rotating, so it is only logical to conclude that our planet is rotating as well.

First of all, what makes you think that Earth is a planet? The ancients didn't make that assumption. The only reason you assume that planets (formerly known as "wandering stars") are Earth-like and that stars are distant suns is because of NASA propaganda. I guarantee if NASA hadn't implanted the idea in your heads, you wouldn't look up at the sky and assume that those little pin-pricks of light are all Earth-like objects.

They filmed in Arizona and told you it was the moon. They filmed in Australia and told you it was Mars. They made intricate CGI images/videos and told you it was actual footage of the planets. The lie is so big you can't believe how bold and simple it is.

"In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying." -Adolf Hitler

Take a good look at any NASA photo/video of the planets and tell me with a straight face that's not CGI. You'll notice NASA was started by Masons, every mission patch is awash with occult images, and their purpose of existence is to propagate this nihilistic cosmology of accidental big bang evolution over purposeful creation.

Your article, while well written, clearly is based on ulterior motives (proof in the existence of a god)

The only motive in all my research is finding the truth. I'd say your comment and rejection of common sense and evidence is "clearly based on ulterior motives."

I would also like to note that both studies with dates to reference were conducted well over 80 years ago, long before the technological revolution.

Contrary to popular egoistic opinion, modern man is far less intelligent than ancient man. Thanks to progressive mass indoctrination, the average man/woman 100 years ago was well smarter than us. If you don't believe me, try taking a 19th century 8th grade exam. It doesn't take a "technological revolution" to prove that the Earth is motionless. Many simple experiments can prove it in your back yard.

What philosophical leaps have I made? I have said nothing that isn't completely reproducible by anyone with either a high school physics education or a kayak.

My use of the word "relative" in no way corresponds to Einstein's theory of Relativity - please do not try to set up a straw man. In fact, this is all stuff that was well established by the time Newtonian physics came along and corresponds precisely with reality as it is observed every day by 7 billion people (unlike the theory of relativity, which I confess has never made a whole lot of sense to me personally).

Are you truly going to deny that objects may appear to move at different velocities depending on the motion of the reference frame (i.e., you)? Have you never been in a boat, or a car, or for that matter walked down the street and observed this yourself? Don't try to deflect by accusing me of holding a relativistic philosophy; are you actually going to deny this?

As regards the double-tube experiment you referenced, surely you are aware that the distance traveled by the Earth in six months pales in comparison to the distance to even the nearest star. Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light-years away; if you expect to detect an appreciable parallax on that kind of distance with two pipes in your backyard and your naked eye, you're not thinking straight.

One other thing; you do not feel motion. You have never felt motion in your whole life, and you never will. You feel acceleration, not motion; motion itself is not the result of a palpable force. Only when there is a difference in motion is it possible to feel it; therefore, we would feel exactly the same whether the Earth was standing still or moving at a million miles per hour.

My use of the word "relative" in no way corresponds to Einstein's theory of Relativity - please do not try to set up a straw man.

The Earth is fixed and motionless. The aether / firmament (containing the sun, moon, and stars) travels around us in perfect 24 hour circles. If you understood, as the ancients did, that the Earth is a fixed absolute and the firmament rotates in absolute perfect circles around us, then you would see that your use of the word "relative" in every way corresponds to Einstein's theory of relativity.

When the ancient Egyptians wrote about the sun and moon being carried in boats across the sky every day and every night, they weren't stupid and they weren't talking about a literal boat. It's a metaphor for heavenly waters, the aether / firmament which travels in perpetual absolute perfect circles carrying the sun, moon, and stars along with it.

Michelson, Morley, Gale, Sagnac and others proved that the aether exists and measured it; this isn't even debated, it's just ignored. By ignoring the aether and touting Einstein's relativity theory, the establishment cosmologists have taken all fixed absolutes away and left us with the haphazard relativistic philosophy you're so tightly clinging on to.

Are you truly going to deny that objects may appear to move at different velocities depending on the motion of the reference frame (i.e., you)? Have you never been in a boat, or a car, or for that matter walked down the street and observed this yourself? Don't try to deflect by accusing me of holding a relativistic philosophy; are you actually going to deny this?

You're using relativism to debate proven absolutes. The Earth is a fixed absolute. The firmament travels in fixed absolute circles around us. So your relativistic parallax perspective thought-experiment is irrelevant.

As regards the double-tube experiment you referenced, surely you are aware that the distance traveled by the Earth in six months pales in comparison to the distance to even the nearest star. Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light-years away; if you expect to detect an appreciable parallax on that kind of distance with two pipes in your backyard and your naked eye, you're not thinking straight.

And why do you think "Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light-years away?" Again, "light-year" is a hypothetical measurement that only exists if you reject the proven aether in favor of Einstein's relativity theory. What evidence do you have that Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light-years away? Because NASA told you so. That is all. Based on red-shifting light and relativist formulas, some establishment mathematicians cranked out the number 4.2 and you're repeating it like it means something. Ben, the stars don't move even an inch after six months of supposed orbital motion. The reason is because the Earth isn't moving. But you say the reason is because all those lights in the sky are too far away to change even an inch of parallax after hundreds of millions of miles of supposed orbit around the sun. Occam's razor anyone?

Try this experiment: Take a small battery powered fan into your car. face it toward the windshield. With the windows rolled up see how fast you have to go before the air coming from the fan no longer feels like it is moving forward.

Because the inside of the car is closed off from the outside the air will always blow forward no matter how fast you go or any acceleration or deceleration you make.

Oh and for the poster that said "we could theoretically levitate straight up & wait and land on a different spot" or anything similar, please pass that ish my way. Reminds me of the time I asked my best friend if a blade of grass would eventually grow into a tree.

Hey, yeah 1/5 of the city is under water right now, it's pretty crazy. I'm not avoiding your questions or setting up a straw man. The examples you gave are true from a relativistic perspective, I'm not denying that. It's just that they're irrelevant because we're dealing with fixed absolutes and you want to talk about relative parallaxes. Peace

Hey Eric! It's once again Rob. Thanks for bringing this subject up once again, forgot it a long ago.

I've never ever felt motivated to research the subject myself, mostly because I find it quite hard to believe, but I'm open to it and want to start a complete research of the subject (vectorial calculus of body dynamics, physics laws involved, etc).

I would just like if you could transfer me the ebook please, it's quite hard to find (need the most sources of both heliocentric and geocentric appraisals and data as possible). When I'm finished, I'll give you all the information I'll gather.

I'll be curious to see what you come up with Rob. I haven't been able to find much information on this subject at all - it's been nearly suppressed out of existence. Most of the info out there on Geocentricism is religious in nature and uses verses from the Bible or Koran as "proof." Again, if anybody finds some good links, please post them here. Peace

I also watched your comment about the planets and the stars... stating that we too were decieved into believing them as spheres or something, and stars as being distant suns. Can you please explain me that more thoroughly?

I mean, I wouldn't be surprised that this to be actually and undoubtedly true, we've been lied to for so many years... and i've researched most fields of study to realize such thing, but, is the lie really that great? Well:

"The best, and probably the only way to absolutely conceal something, is by sorrounding that something in absolute ignorance. I mean, how can you question something that you absolutely ignore?"

I'm not saying what those pin-points of light are in the sky either way, but simply pointing out a few observations. It has become absolutely unquestioned gospel truth that stars are suns and Earth is a planet, yet there is no proof of this anywhere, and the only "evidence" we have are images from NASA.

From my research on NASA, cosmology and the fake Moon and Mars landings, it has become apparent to me that NASA is the biggest mind-control operation in existence and their whole purpose is to propagate this massive nihilistic cosmological deception. As such, I am 100% skeptical of everything that comes from NASA, just on principle, including all Hubble images and supposed video of the planets.

I think anyone that's being really honest with themselves, when they look at any NASA footage or images of the planets, must admit that it all looks like CGI. I've never seen a convincing image of Saturn that couldn't have been made in Photoshop.

So if you'll bare with me for a moment and assume with me that NASA is simply the Mason's latest step in propagating their heliocentric deception, the moon, Mars landings and all images they show us are fake. If that's the case, then what evidence do we have that stars are actually distant solar systems? What evidence do we have that planets are Earth-like objects? None. It's certainly an interesting and plausible idea, but there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support it.

"The stars are projectors yeah, projecting our lives down to this planet Earth" -Modest Mouse

Many ancient civilizations believed that stars are like our soul projectors, that we each have a soul and we each are a star. The stars run a fixed course around Earth along their celestial sphere, and that is like each one of our karma, directing our lives. In every ancient civilization the "planets" were always considered the gods. They are known as "wandering stars" because they don't follow fixed courses like regular stars and seem internally directed as if possessing their own consciousness.

I don't pretend to know either way, but I'll hold the right to remain 100% skeptical of everything NASA says since I've collected voluminous evidence of their other deceptions. Hope that helps. Peace

Yes, the stars and planets appear as tiny dots of light, just like they do without a telescope. Everything else we "know" about the stars and planets has been given to us by NASA, including all images/video of Earth from space. Here's a clip of Apollo astronauts faking a shot of Earth from space:

That's simply not true. You can clearly see the disc of several planets as well as the rings of Saturn and several moons.

Certain "planets" are only visible from amateur telescopes as points of light, but that is not true of, for example, Mars, Jupiter, or Saturn, all of which will resolve clearly into discs with some discernable surface features if you examine them with a decently-powered amateur telescope.

Like I said, there are plenty of amateur images available on the Interwebs of planets through amateur telescopes. Obviously there are no images of the Earth from amateurs, but the statement that all our images of other planets come from NASA is incorrect.

I wonder if there are any photos of the Earth from the Soviet space program. Have you come across anything like that in your research?

Thanks so much for your insight into the geocentric universe Eric. I read through the appraisal with great intrigue and like everyone else was led to believe the earth is spinning around the sun along with all the other planets!!

What i find fascinating with some people is their complete lack of basic and fundamental reasoning in their defence of a heliocentric universe and like their pseudo scientist masters they adjust their theory to fit a preconceived fallacy which is the bedrock of western civilisation.

Its so enlightening that the truth is coming out in an ever increasing age of fiction and clammed up minds, that when it does it really offends people and this goes to show just how successful the Illuminati are at brainwashing their subjects who go along with everything thats taught them.

Somewhere in their secret meetings they must all have such a laugh at us that we are that stupid to be so indoctrinated with falsehoods. It makes the Protocols more poignant as i recall

"The intellectuals of the goyim will puff themselves up with their knowledges, and without any logical verification of them will put into affect all the information available from science, which our AGENTUR specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want.

DESTRUCTIVE EDUCATION!

Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism and Nietzsche-ism.To us Jews at any rate it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the goyim!".

Protocol II; 2,3

Of course the Protocols were 'debunked' as a 'work of fiction' right????!!. It sure seems someone is desperate to keep the truth from the sheeple and in a world of universal lies and deceit telling the truth is indeed a revolutionary act!

Certain "planets" are only visible from amateur telescopes as points of light, but that is not true of, for example, Mars, Jupiter, or Saturn, all of which will resolve clearly into discs with some discernable surface features if you examine them with a decently-powered amateur telescope.

Right, we can see "tiny dots of light" or "discs with some discernable features" but what we don't see is evidence that they are "Earth-like habitations" as the Moon, Mars, and other planets have been presented to us as. Without a NASA indoctrination, the Moon and Mars are simply lights in the sky, but since the Apollo "Moon" landings and the Viking "Mars" rover, the world has been taught to believe that these two circular lights in the night sky are actually Earth-like places up in outer space. This has warped our ideas of cosmology and destroyed the perceived importance and uniqueness of Earth.

I wonder if there are any photos of the Earth from the Soviet space program. Have you come across anything like that in your research?

Not that I'm aware of, but I have no more reason to trust the Soviet space program than I do NASA.

What i find fascinating with some people is their complete lack of basic and fundamental reasoning in their defence of a heliocentric universe and like their pseudo scientist masters they adjust their theory to fit a preconceived fallacy which is the bedrock of western civilisation. Its so enlightening that the truth is coming out in an ever increasing age of fiction and clammed up minds, that when it does it really offends people and this goes to show just how successful the Illuminati are at brainwashing their subjects who go along with everything thats taught them. Somewhere in their secret meetings they must all have such a laugh at us that we are that stupid to be so indoctrinated with falsehoods.

Thanks for the great comment Zuma. I totally agree. Interesting how it's somehow become "accepted fact" that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a hoax even though it perfectly describes and encapsulates the Zionist agenda which has since been carried out. The winners always write history and "debunk" anyone who exposes them.

Eric I used to follow your blog frequently. In recent months I've noticed some unfounded and rather wild ramblings that has had me doubting some of your beliefs and assertions on your blog.

I would like to say that This post is absolute nonsense, it has for me put the nail in the coffin regarding your credibility.

I would like to see how you can explain the following phenomena with your geocentric model; the phases of the moon, the opposing rotation of weather systems in earth's northern and southern hemispheres, the other planets' retrograde motion in the sky, and the seasons ... just to name a few.

Seriously, I want to see if you can give a sound answer to each (or even one) of those phenomena using the geocentric model.

You may not believe there are other planets in the sky that make up the rest of our solar system, or that NASA's photographs of them are real, but if you go to any observatory with a powerful enough telescope, as I have done myself, you will see these planets - and in some cases their moons - in considerable enough detail to realize that these are large spheres of rock and dirt or gas, that are in some ways similar to our own planet, the same ones that NASA has photographed.

However, that would probably never have an effect on you because of your extreme and unbending disposition. My bet is that you'd write it off as part of the conspiracy; the eyepiece being hooked up to a screen display of a CGI Jupiter or Mars.

You can view the planets through many amateur telescopes too, which leads me to my next question;

You answered an anonymous question about photos from the soviet space program stating that you "have no more reason to trust the Soviet space program than I do NASA." But why did you completely ignore his question about images of planets from amateur telescopes?

Also, I see you asked "And why aren't there world-wide perturbations of our smooth rotation after earthquakes or meteor strikes?" -- Actually there are perturbations in the case of earthquakes, but the earth is so massive that the effect is imperceptible, and what recorded meteor strikes on earth do you have to base this question on?

Anyway, Ben debunked this crap the best, I hope he has some more to add. And again, please explain the phenomena stated in the third paragraph using the geocentric model!!!

Eric I used to follow your blog frequently. In recent months I've noticed some unfounded and rather wild ramblings that has had me doubting some of your beliefs and assertions on your blog. I would like to say that This post is absolute nonsense, it has for me put the nail in the coffin regarding your credibility.

Has anyone else noticed this trend of detractors in the comments section "taking offense" or "acting distraught" at some article and then calling my integrity and credibility into question? Couldn't be Cointel Pro trying to denounce my daring and ability to question taboo subjects could it? No, just kidding, I'm sure you're all genuine commenters and no trolls ever visit here.

I would like to see how you can explain the following phenomena with your geocentric model; the phases of the moon, the opposing rotation of weather systems in earth's northern and southern hemispheres, the other planets' retrograde motion in the sky, and the seasons

Not that your narrow mind could understand such things Eugene, but here's the research you so impolitely requested. I'm not here to try and convince you of something your pea brain can't comprehend, so don't be surprised if I refuse to approve further antagonistic comments. As for your telescope comment, as I already said, you cannot confirm the moon or planets to be Earth-like habitations via telescope. Now take your trollish attitude elsewhere to less "wild," more "credible" blogs.

So basically what you are saying is that you have changed a belief system into another and now you are defending it like any good believer would. All of your main arguments have clearly been debunked but you ignore the facts and cling on points that you can still defend.If you close your eyes while driving a car your senses tell you you are not moving but that doesn't change the fact that you are still in a moving car. So open your eyes before you crash.

An answer to vindicate a geocentric model of the universe against a critical objection such as Foucault’s Pendulum is found within the advent of modern geocentric models. The first one, by the German physicist Paul Gerber, showed that if the universe rotates around the earth once per day instead of the earth rotating on its axis once per day, then the usual evidences for heliocentrism, such as the Foucault pendulum would appear precisely as we see them.

A swinging pendulum does not in any way confirm heliocentricity. Whether the Earth spins around the Universe or the Universe spins around the Earth, the same effect would be observed. However, the Allais Effect has been repeatedly observed showing that during eclipses, the movement of pendulums slows down! This is absolutely incompatible with the idea of a steadily rotating Earth and shows that it is the Universal rotating aether / firmament which affects the pendulum and causes it to momentarily cease its circular movement.

In our heliocentric model of Earth's revolution and rotation, if we are whizzing about at a constant velocity, all is good and explanatory. The only time you would "feel" these incredible speeds, is if our Earth accelerated or decelerated. The atmosphere is moving at 1000 mph WITH us, especially at/near ground level atmospheric pressure and density. Yet, since the atmosphere is fluid, and is not a solid extension of our earth, we DO experience the turbulent effects of our rotation in our whether. A big example would be Jet Streams. (and yes, pilots do have to account for them when applicable)Jet streams are caused by a combination of a planet's rotation on its axis and atmospheric heating (by solar radiation and, on some planets other than Earth, internal heat).

As far as the cannonball argument..... We are on this ride with the Earth. You, Me, the atmosphere, The cannon and the cannon ball are all rotating at 1000 mph (at equator). Together.Therefore no relative motion or forces at play, just the blast of the cannon as is.

As far as Revolving around the Sun...Astronomers depend on our solar revolution which annually changes our visual perspective of the heavens by 2 A.U. (distance from earth to sun). By measuring the slight semi-annual position change of a star due to our changing view perspective(solar revolution), we calculate a star's distance. We can measure and observe this annual position change.

From a Geocentric perspective, It seems unlikely that the heavens and the Ether would dance left to right in this manner as the heaven revolve around us. And.. even if the stars were much closer than we believe, they would have to revolve around us at speeds with many times over the speeds we speak of for Earth.

All that motion of an infinite amount of heavenly bodies at relatively infinite greater distances and therefore at infinitely higher speeds.....eh?Geocentric Theory is not plausible, nor does it share an aspect of divinity. IMO

in the heliocentric model (Copernicus), essentially only one object, the Earth, needs to move in any particular fashion to explain heavenly observation.

In the geocentric model, the infinite moves while Earth sits still. Statistically, the odds this theory is correct is about infinity to one.

Not simple, not efficient, probably not true, and where is the divinity in that?

I can understand a dubious position toward Science as so far that it can be used and bought to support a corrupt geo-political agenda. Yet sometimes science is just science, our best stab at truth via sensory observation and logical methodologies.

Happy 11-11-11 (i found your blog while researching the number 11 and the work of Rick Clay.)

Thanks for the comment Aztlander. Glad to hear you're looking into the important work of Rik Clay.

The only time you would "feel" these incredible speeds, is if our Earth accelerated or decelerated. The atmosphere is moving at 1000 mph WITH us, especially at/near ground level atmospheric pressure and density.

So why don't we "feel" the Allais effect then? Can you explain the Allais effect using the heliocentric theory? NASA can't, they just ignore it. None of you can explain the Michelson, Morley, Gale, Airey, or Sagnac results either, but you're all good at ignoring them, and repeating the same refuted arguments.

Astronomers depend on our solar revolution which annually changes our visual perspective of the heavens by 2 A.U. (distance from earth to sun). By measuring the slight semi-annual position change of a star due to our changing view perspective(solar revolution), we calculate a star's distance.

See Ben's "4.2 light-years" argument. "2 A.U." means nothing to me and I don't know why it does to anyone else. Has anyone taken a tape-measure and checked these? You cannot confirm the distance to those lights in the sky any better than I can measure God's fingernail.

The relativistic formulas they're using to come up with these ridiculously large distances are simply the huge numbers they need to account for our lack of change in position after hundreds of millions of miles of supposed rotation each year. You can prove in your backyard that the Earth has no orbital motion, but if you believe like Ben that the nearest star is "4.2 light-years" away, then that means we won't experience a single inch of parallax change even after hundreds of millions of miles of supposed annual orbit.

That's like me telling you the Horizon is 4.2 light-years away. You can't disprove it because no matter how far you travel, the Horizon still appears equally far away. So to convince you, I just have to come up with a sufficiently large number and it will account for your lack of change in perspective.

Hi thanks for the interesting article gave me something to think about ,i remember seeing a video called thunderbolts of the gods http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374#there is also a website http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/its about the electric nature of the universe they also don,t subsribe to the big bang [what a silly name]idea, been a long time since i looked at it though.thanks for your blog Al.

I hope it is clear, Eugene, why I don't think there is much more to be added to the discussion.

When everyone who disagrees with you is simply stubborn and closed-minded, it's pretty easy to maintain all sorts of nonsensical beliefs. It is an interesting perversion of the Occam's Razor principle Eric loves to cite: is it simpler that the world is more complicated than you realize, or is it simpler that everyone who says so is a liar?

I highly recommend examining those links Eric posted in response to your comment; they are entertaining, at least.

Have a look at this supposed footage from 2011 NASA's ISS. How is it that people believe this to be real footage? Have you seen Transformers and Lord of the Rings? I'll admit this is some very well made CGI, but it's clearly CGI:

I showed my girlfriend and she just started laughing, then pointing out all the problems with it. Where are the layers of dimensionality? It's supposed to be time-lapsed but compare the motion of the "satellite" with the individual "lightning" sparks constantly shown. Compare that with the distance being covered per second of time-lapse and you've got a divide by 0 error.

So here's Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins faking a shot of Earth from space in 1969:

In 40 years the Masons in Hollywood and NASA have gotten much more adept at faking shots of Earth from space. People believe it more too. A survey taken just after the Apollo landings said 30% of Americans were suspicious of their authenticity, another survey taken in 1999 found only 6% of Americans didn't believe the moon landings were real. Like Hitler said about "the big lie," make it big, keep repeating it, and eventually people will believe it."

You can see the Apollo 11 astronauts faking a shot of Earth from space, and you can see this 2011 "footage" is clearly CGI, but something in you wants to believe it's all real because as Hitler said, you can't "believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

I've just read the heated polemic and I've noticed that no heliocentrism supporter has ever tackled the issue of the centrifugal force. They all choose to talk about the absence of acceleration which, in their opinion would explain why we cannot feel the movement of the earth but what about the centrifugal force? Every spinning object has one! And more so an object with a huge mass like the earth! Can anyone calculate what gravitational force would be necessary be to annihilate the immense centrifugal force's effects? Also why is the atmosphere spinning together with the earth? If the gravitational force would be so great to be able to pull the atmosphere together with the earth then how come the little birds are able to fly?? Or the bugs for that matter??

Great questions Ralph. Supposedly the Earth is moving at 1,000 + 67,000 + 500,000 + 670,000,000 mph through space, and somehow all these centrifugal, gravitational, and inertial forces cancel out perfectly so that standing on Earth we experience none of it.

And when asked after hundreds of millions of miles of supposed orbit why the stars haven't changed their position in the sky even one inch, their answer is that they are all several "light-years" away, which is a Star Trek term that makes gullible heliocentrists adhere to an untenable position.

Can anyone calculate what gravitational force would be necessary be to annihilate the immense centrifugal force's effects? Also why is the atmosphere spinning together with the earth? If the gravitational force would be so great to be able to pull the atmosphere together with the earth then how come the little birds are able to fly?? Or the bugs for that matter??

Right, what annihilates all those forces? Why can birds and bugs still fly? Why can't we feel all this motion and these centrifugal forces, but I can feel the slightest breeze on my face? Why can clouds and wind travel in opposing directions simultaneously? Why does a pendulum slow down during an eclipse? And why can't any of you heliocentrists explain the results of Michelson, Morely, Gale, Airey, Sagnac, Kantor, and Allais' experiments?

You are not the only one who challenges the Copernican theory as of late... what if I mentioned that some people are now suggesting that the Earth isn't even round? Rather, they claim that the Earth is convex. I do not claim to know the answers to these riddles, I just bear the message. Go have a look at a group called "Projecto Portal" & their little friend "Bilu" :

Bilu's big announcement? The Earth is NOT round, says Bilu. Rather the earth is CONVEX and Bilu says we can prove it with a few unconventional tests. Although i'm not one hundred percent behind this, I still find it very intriguing. Of all the things an alien could tell us, this is what Bilu says:

My Gosh... check this out, I translated all of Bilu's words from this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy26JGKz … grec_index

B:On earth it is not spherical, convex, not flat she and convex on the continents

mainly in South America.

Q:What do you suggest we do ADJUSTMENTS to prove that she is not spherical, it

is not round?

Bilu:Tests perform well testing. Bilu will spend a lot of testing for you all an optical

illusion. atmospheric layers of the electromagnetic field of the sphericity of the

plain water in the oceans and leveled agus also naviosmastros tests, cases, and

both have spoken but Bilu. Bilu Bilu has maihor will explain many things to say

Q:then the whole edge of earth and the South as well, any other theories are

other tests that we can do to be able to prove it there?

B:Many, take all tests, the test picks up the light, take the test of the main

telescope is pointing at the Moon, the Moon also just a non-spherical optical

illusion according to the layers of the atmosphere and may also be made with

tests electromagnetic fields on the plane on the cruise on the rivers. the most

perfect form of energy is bound up the waters by throwing a stone square,

rectangle, no matter all the waves will be circular gravity is totally wrong and

forces are varis Bilu says that these forces of earth scientists have not

explained.

So I dug around a bit more on Bilu and Convex Earth Check this out:

The first tests to see if the theory proposed by Land Convex ET Bilu, according to which the continents and oceans are convex level, surprised the researchers found that the effects of optical illusion caused by moisture, fog, sunlight reflected and possibly other unknown laws.

Urandir Fernandes de Oliveira, coordinator of testing and the other members of the research is shown in surprise with the results obtained in Santos / SP and São Lourenço do Sul / RS, not to expect that human perception was easily fooled by optical illusions that we do believe that everything we see is real.

Research is ongoing and has already realized that the human eye can be fooled as to what occurs in the effects of "Fata Morgana", said the mirages that are higher than those inferior mirages, the more common and that create the illusion of lakes, water in distant deserts or on roads with hot asphalt, even when using high precision equipment technology.

Sounds a lot like the argument about dinosaurs as being "here to test our faith," that most Christians use. The fact is, consciousness is behind all of this, and so what if we're not the center of the universe? We're still here aren't we? Whether the earth is on the edge or in the center doesn't change a thing.

But, realistically, the canon thing, and jumping off a moving horse... all very simply explained with relativity. Sure, you jump a further distance if you jump off the front of the horse as opposed to the back- but your relative distance to the horse would be the same either way (except for maybe the wind factor, which ties right into this). Have you ever read Relativity? It's pretty basic stuff.

I have to hand it to you for calling Einstein a "dark philosopher" though. Wow.

Here is something to seriously ponder - NASA has taken men to the moon and back, filmed the rotation of the sun, launched many space shuttle missions and placed many satellites in orbit around the earth - you can see such videos all over the Internet. One video (not pictures) that you will not find is of the earth rotating with the stars clearly in view. And I don't mean satellites rotating around the earth and then taking video from that point of view. I mean think about it, this whole debate would be over in a heart beat if NASA or any other multi-billion dollar agency could just produce one single video of the earth spinning while the stars are visible.

I traveled around the world and taken many planes and never had an issue with walking up the aisle to go to the bathroom. There was no wind in my face and if I jumped up in the air in first class I didn't end up in coach. All this traveling at 400 mph. Just my 2 cents.

I firmly believe that our time on earth is a probationary time for man to prepare to meet God. I feel that existence is about eternal progression. Because this is true the Father wishes to give His children all that He has. Thus, His plan is for men to become like Him. Which means that if we were given that type of exaltation that we would have the power to create life, thus being a father over our own earth(s). This is a very likely explanation as to why there are infinite galaxies, because more and more beings have been given the opportunity to become like God and progress eternally by creating an eternal family. This is why we are here and we live this model on a much smaller level within our own families as a way of teaching and learning through experience. Multiple earths within multiple galaxies and heliocentricism do not disprove the existance of God but rather support and reaffirm His existence and His plan for His children. The thought that we are the only creation that He has allowed would be very bleak indeed.

"I traveled around the world and taken many planes and never had an issue with walking up the aisle to go to the bathroom. There was no wind in my face and if I jumped up in the air in first class I didn't end up in coach. All this traveling at 400 mph. Just my 2 cents."

Ye, on your next flight get out on the wing and jump around, see how that works out.

I believe it was Marshall Hall, in his book The Earth is Not Moving, that claimed that at a certain distance between the earth and the moon there's zero gravital pull in either direction (because the two opposing fources are cancelling each other out). Did I understand that right? If the gravity is zero, how can the earth be pulling the moon?

By the way, his name is probably a pseudonym. How likely is it that someone's birth name is Mars Hall Hall.

As an ordinary person, this is fascinating to read. Science is science and getting to truthful facts is what every scientist should be concerned about when it comes to science. I would like to see the best minds in science look into this scientifically with the best technology that is available today.

A very fascinating moot point. Fascinating, because, if nothing more, it caused such a hubbub of commenting. Personally, I don't much care if everything's going around the earth or the other way around. Doesn't much change my experience being alive. But my room mate brought up what I think is a good question, which may or may not be relevant to this post; what about the ability to perceive ships 'sinking' as they approach the horizon? Not saying this proves heliocentricity, but it seems to prove that the world ain't flat... Or, maybe the observation doesn't constitute proof of the idea of the earth being a sphere, but I wonder what other theories there are that adequately explain this phenomenon.

It definitely doesn't prove heliocentricity because whether we go around the sun or the sun goes around us has no bearing on ships appearing to "sink" at the horizon. It is an argument for the rotundity of the Earth, but even this argument is well-challenged by "Flat Earthers":

Hey guys, the name is Nikko. My professor and I are trying to grasp this idea of a stationary earth consept. We almost figured out all the answers except one- my big mouth shouldnt have asked but hey maybe you guys can assist. Lets go into the rotation of the earth and speeds of our atmosphere.Key lengend: M is mass, V is volume, D is distance, T is time, S is shared speed, X is earths rph, and y is atmosphere mphSo what we all see is that Y has to equal X.X=1038.58 mph and Y has to equal xD/t=1038.58= S(x%D)= D/T times V per M?? (if you dont understand ill simplify)

Lets take a blenders core as an example of earth and he substance your blending is the atmosphere. The rpm of the blender core is on average 15,000...BUT the subtance in the blender will average to 40rpm...okay sure the matter different phase of substance like liquid solids and plasticity...but the phyics and end result is still the same.

A stationary earth with a slow moving atmosphere...sounds like the moon with less density thus resulting in less gravity right?Well throw a ball while standing on the moon. Logic: that ball will eventually return from the other side as long as there is no interference. Why doesnt our atmosphere spin in a perfect circle?

I have an experiment for everyone...then get back to me ...freeze some water (ice cube size) around a long tooth pick or a pen. Get a glass of water and put it over something warm (a dish you heat up in the microwave) and on onesideof the glass put something cold (on the outside of the glass) this will eliminate that tempurature facts. While holding onto the pick or pen place the ice cube in the glass of water carefully and without movement. The water will slowly spin in different directions due to heating and cooling. Now spin the "stationary" ice cube as fact as you can with the pick. what happens? The water doesnt spin as fast as your cube and it doesnt spin in a perfect circle just like our atmosphere....so wouldnt that mean its clearly impossible for the earth to be still?

Hey Nikko, I appreciate your diligence in addressing this matter, but I'm afraid spinning ice-cubes on toothpicks has no bearing on whether or not the Earth is stationary. Several conclusive experiments have been performed which vouch for a motionless Earth:

The first thing I want to learn is what relativity is (in simple words), if it can be proved by experiment and why it opposes the stationary earth model. I've heard there is the special and general relativity.

I dont know if relativity has to do with the "relation", the "marriage" of Cronos and Rhea, or something else far different.

I think people who accept Einstein's theory, believe Time does not "flow" with the same speed at each part of the universe. They believe that people who would return from a far place of outer space would be younger than their children after the return on Earth.

One of the first commentators here said that if geocentric system is correct this doesnt prove God exists. In the same way, if heliocentric system is correct this doesnt prove God doesnt exist. And if we suppose we live in a tiny place of a vast material universe, this doesnt prove also God doesnt exist or that were not important.

The "central" position that Sun holds in many religions is proof of this. Egyptian cosmogony, Jewish cosmogony, Greeks like Pythagoreans and Orphics all give a prominent role in the Sun. The Sun is a visible manifestation of the hidden God. A source of life.

I will say something different. I believe all systems are both true and false. A centre of the universe is always relative. Taking as centre the Earth, planets rotate around the Earth. Taking as centre the Sun, planets rotate around the Sun. Taking as centre Venus, planets rotate around Venus etc. etc.

I will finish saying something really great. In reality, the visible universe is a virtual reality. Colors, images, smells, sounds, touches, tastes do not really exist in the outside world. We have a super decoding machine in our nervous system which is also part of the outside world. The one who views and feels all these "fake realities" is the soul which is the real thing. Ancient Indians were calling the world "maya"=illusion. Socrates stated this great truth now confirmed by science.Zen Buddhism of Mahayana has similar views.

So, the message is that God is not outside there, theres not really physical and metaphysical world. God can be found inside us. He is the ultimate and only reality.

I would like to check theories and I like people who are considered anti-scientific(such as geocentrists) as long as we are not pushed by a spirit of prejudice.

Great comments Christa! We have not found the edge of the universe, so we cannot know where the center is. We can however fashion experiments to check whether the stars are moving relative to us, we're moving relative to the stars, or both, and the experiments show that the Earth is motionless while the rest of the cosmos rotates around us.

Here's another interesting perspective from Mr. Wayne L. Chipman:

Hi Eric, I always use Science to convince people:

1. Science says; The milky Way is traveling at 670,000,000 mph through the Universe outward from a Big Bang.

2. Science says; The Sun is traveling in a spiral around the Milky Way at 500,000,000 mph.

3. Science says; The Earth is traveling in a circle around the Sun at 67,000 mph.

4. Science says; Our Earth is rotating once a day and that the North Star is always centered on the axis of this spin.

5. Science says; The North Star is 200 to 400 light years away.

6. Anyone can take a time lapse photo centered on the North Star showing all the visible stars traveling in a circle around it.

7. By what Science Say's the Earth is spiraling through the Universe. Like a Slinky stretched out in a curve.

So either the Visible Universe (that which we see) is spiraling through the known Universe, around our Earth's axis, which is spiraling around the Sun, which is spiraling around the Milky Way, which is traveling through the Universe. This seems far stretched as the farther Stars would be exceeding the speed of light.

Or a fixed Earth.

This works great in a pictograph format. The tubes 36 inches apart should silence any light bending or Red shift people. Some of the stuff People say defending a moving Earth gets pretty outlandish at times. It is funny when some see the truth of this and then do not want to discuss it any more.

I have learned that those of the Atheist or Evolutionary Religions are very misinformed and are a waste of time, I am looking for all others to try to open their eyes.

Eric I'd like to hear your explanation on 2 telescoping "proofs" of heliocentrists. The first has to do with Venus - they say Venus' new phase appear larger than Venus' full phase. The second has to do with Jupiter - they say satellites rotate around him.

Something else.I just read that scientists say Sun moves with 83,500km/h , so they believe that sun moves. Lol!

Hey Christa, I like how you put the word "proofs" in quotation marks... because what are they proving? The motions of two tiny lights in the sky called Venus and Jupiter has no bearing on whether or not the ground underneath our feet is spinning around the Sun at 32 times rifle bullet speed. There are scientific and repeatable experiments to check for this and they've all concluded the Earth to be motionless. This is why Heliocentrists all must grasp at straws while ignoring the elephants in the room.

I have began reading geocentric articles and Im amazed. First of all, I hate the fact that rulers of "popular" science have managed brainwashing the masses, in order to consider fools and unscientific all these with a different view.

Ok, if you can give any help Eric I would be grateful. I find interesting your conversations with a guy called Ben, about the relation between the atmosphere(air)and ground of Earth. What do exactly the heliocentrists and followers of Einstein say?

1)Do they say the air moves with the same speed that the ground does, so that they can justify we dont feel any difference, but it "seems" the ground and air rest?2) Why the air should move along with the Earth? Is gravity related to this theory?3)Which are the best proofs against their theory? Can you explain what did you say about clouds?

Also. Id like to ask you what you think about microcosm. Do you accept their discoveries and claims are real in microcosm, instead of the macrocosm? I believe microcosm discoveries(atoms,biological code,functions etc) are superb because they justify intelligent design, no matter if atheists try to say they dont.

I also think that the claim "nothing rests"(as Heraclitus says "everything flows") is true, but this doesnt mean I accept the Earth moves in relation with something other. I mean atoms, electrons move even if we are at rest, they move even in stones, life flows through the Earth etc. Even if the Earth is stationary in relation with the Sun, its' elements are in constant flow. Do you agree?

Hey Christa, thanks for the comments. I agree with all your assertions, and as for your questions: Yes, they say the air moves at exactly the same speed as the ground does so it only "seems" at rest to us though they cannot explain A) what combination of gravitational, centrifugal, inertial or other supposed forces makes this so, B) how the mystery force is strong enough to perfectly pull the entire atmosphere along with the Earth but weak enough to allow tiny bugs/birds to fly equally unobstructed in every direction, C) why we can't feel our 1000 mph "spinning" but we can feel light breezes in any direction and watch clouds meander their way in every direction, at varying velocities, often in opposite directions at different altitudes simultaneously, D) how the entire atmosphere spins so perfectly along with Earth that no one in all of history has ever felt the slightest bit of motion, disturbance, or air resistance, and E) If the world is supposedly spinning at 1,038 mph at the equator, about 900-700 mph at the mid-latitudes of USA and Europe, decreasing gradually all the way down to 0 mph at the North and South poles, where apparently the stagnant atmosphere never moves and completely escapes the grips of the "magic velcro," then this means that at all latitudes, the atmosphere manages to perfectly coincide with the speed of the Earth compensating from 0 mph at the poles all the way up to 1,038 mph at the equator, and every speed in between. These are all quite lofty assumptions that heliocentrists make without any experimental evidence to back them up. As for "the best proofs against heliocentricity," there is only evidence and subjective interpretations of that evidence, no such thing as "scientific proof" of anything (though scientific materialist dogmatists might argue). Different scientists have always and will always have competing theories based on building evidence, and I'd guess ultimately they're all wrong because reality is far too complex to be defeated by the scientific method alone :)

THANK YOU. VERY HELPFUL! IF YOU WOULD LIKE YOU CAN ALSO TELL ME YOUR OPINION ABOUT MICROCOSM. I BELIEVE BIOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY SAY THE TRUTH BECAUSE THIS FIELD IS MORE OPEN TO PUBLIC, IN CONTRAST WITH ASTROPHYSICS AND SPACE SCIENCE WHERE YOU MUST HAVE A MASON DEGREE TO BE ACCEPTED FOR WORK. BESIDES THIS, BIOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY SUPPORT CREATION BY INTELLIGENT GOD.

YOURE RIGHT ABOUT EVOLUTION THEORY CONNECTED WITH HUGE CHRONOLOGICAL DATING OF STRATA AND HELIOCENTRIC MODEL. IM STARTING TO REALIZE THE EVIL CONNECTION. AS ABOUT N.A.S.A = NEW AGE SATANIC AGENT, IF WE ARE TO BELIEVE THEM, WE MUST NOT SELECTIVELY DO THIS. IF SOMEONE BELIEVES THEIR TELESCOPES AND THEORIES DO NOT LIE, THEN THEIR VIDEOS WITH ALIENS MUST NOT LIE EITHER. SO WE EITHER HAVE TO TOTALLY REJECT THEM OR TOTALLY ACCEPT THEM. IF ALIEN VIDEOS ARE CONSIDERED AND HAVE BEEN FOUND FAKE, WHY THEIR TELESCOPES ARE TRUE? FIGHT THE BASTARDS

I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME VERY INSPIRING BELIEFS. WE HAVE A NEW APPROACH FOR THINGS, THAT IS UNIQUE AMONG PEOPLE. I SEE THAT YOU STUDY OTHER RELIGIONS APART FROM THE BIBLE, BUT YOU DONT USE THEM TO ATTACK THE BIBLE. ME TOO. IM NOT NEOPAGANIST MASON OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER, BUT I LIKE RELIGION IN GENERAL.

ID LIKE TO ASK YOU TWO QUESTIONS.

1) WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT SOLIDS IN THE HEAVENS? IN GILGAMESH EPIC, WE READ ABOUT METEORITES FALLING. SO SKY ESSENCE IS PARTLY SOLID.WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE BELIEF THAT SOME OF THE STARS COULD BE SOLID PLANETS? WOULD IT BE IN HARMONY WITH GEOCENTRISM?

2) I WOULD LIKE TO FIND THE ANSWER TO THE FOLLOWING ATHEISTIC HELIOCENTRIST CLAIM. THEY CLAIM STATIONARY SATELLITES(I THINK MANMADE) PROVE THE EARTH MOVES.

For starters, no one feel the 1,000mph movement because no one feel "speed". Ever. If you are put inside a car without windows, you won't be able to tell whether you are travelling at 10mph or 100mph. Your senses only detect acceleration. If the car suddenly stops from 100mph to 0mph, you'll feel it. You probably won't notice, however, if your speed changes from 100mph to 99mph.

Let's thing of angular speed. If you are in a merry-go-round, you can feel it spinning because it spins, I don't know, once every five seconds? Let's assume once every 30 seconds to be conservative. That means every 30 seconds it revols 360 degrees, which gives us a speed of 12 degrees per second. The Earth, on the other hand, moves at a stead and slowly rate of 0.0041 degrees per second. That's reaaaally slow. That would be a merry-go-round that spins once a day. You wouldn't notice it's moving.

There is also the Coriolis effect, the force that causes an object to drift when attempting to move straight on a spinning surface. It causes tropical storms to move away from the Equator. That's why a storm created in the North hemisphere doesn't go south (literally). That's proof the Earth is spinning on its axis.

All other planets spin over their axes. We've been to Mars now. We have had probes to visit all the other planets (and alos Pluto). We know the Earth is a planet just like them. They spin. Why would be a surprise to learn the Earth also spins? (Also, the fact that we managed to GET there in the first place means our Heliocentric model is right; we wouldn't be able to travel there if we didn't know exactly where the planets are.)

If you observe Venus for some time, you will notice it has phases. Just like the Moon. If you study those phases, you will conclude that Venus must be orbiting the Sun, not the Earth. If they were orbiting the Earth, those phases would be different. Venus can't orbit the Sun if the Earth doesn't, so this is also proof that the Earth orbits the Sun.

That's why Heliocentrism (the idea that the Sun is roughly the center of the solar system, not the center of the universe) is the right model. It's not "unquestionable". It's actually a very good exercise to question it. But all evidence suggest it's the right model.

The Earth, on the other hand, moves at a stead and slowly rate of 0.0041 degrees per second. That's reaaaally slow. That would be a merry-go-round that spins once a day. You wouldn't notice it's moving.

The Heliocentric model doesn't have the Earth moving "reaaaally slow," in fact they say it's spinning at 32 times rifle bullet speed (1000mph), rotating around the Sun at 67,000mph, around the Milky Way at 500,000mph and through the known universe at 67,000,000mph. That's a far cry from a merry-go-round. I can feel the slightest Eastward breeze, but no one in history has ever felt the slightest perturbation from all this Westward spinning/rotating.

There is also the Coriolis effect

The Coriolis effect, just like Foucalt's pendulum, can be equally explained by the rotating firmament or a rotating Earth. Regardless whether it is the Earth that is rotating or the aether that is rotating, the same effect would be noticed.

"Since Foucault’s pendulum and the Coriolis effect are closely related, they can be considered together. Foucault’s pendulum, which was constructed in Paris in 1851, was a pendulum consisting of a 200 foot long flexible wire on which a heavy iron weight was suspended so as to be free to oscillate in any direction. It was found that the oscillating pendulum never retraced its path but at each swing apparently deviated: if the experiment is conducted in the northern hemisphere it deviates to the right, and in the southern hemisphere it will deviate to the left. The so-called “Coriolis effect” is similar: a shell from a long range gun, aimed at a target to the south of it, will land to the right of the target in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere. Although the apparently obvious conclusion to be drawn from these two experiments is that the earth is rotating anticlockwise when observed from a fixed point above the North Pole, on further examination the obviousness is seen to be an illusion. It is at first not easy to grasp the fact that Foucault’s pendulum and the Coriolis effect only demonstrate relative motion and do not demonstrate which, if either, of the two objects is at rest, but careful thought will show it to be true. All that the experiments show is that there are forces which act on bodies in motion relative to each other, and that either the earth is rotating, or the inertial field of the “rest of the universe” is rotating round the earth, or some combination of these movements is occurring. Certainly a rotating earth would account for the phenomenon equally well (in this case the fixed stars would be preventing the ether from going round the earth at the same speed as the latter rotated), but it does not account for it better. The phenomenon cannot therefore logically be used to prove any one of the alternatives." -N. Martin Gwynne

It is sadly obvious people with no scientic knowledge are able to post bunk knowledge about our planet and even the universe. There are billions upon billions of universe and put the exponential at a fact at 1billion then we are only a speck in the fragment of the smallest vibration of the tinest piece of matter that exists. After reading all of this I can not understand by anyone could not understand the Venturi effect or why Eddy currents form when water is flowing over or around and object. The fact is when 2 objects are traveling at the same speed stational object earth it is ridiculous to thing that if one object rose above the earth the other object would take just have to wait till another destination arrives. If the earth were stationary then no gravity. we would all be floating and there would be no gases on earth and nothing that needed oxygen as a means to covert other matter to energy. Since the moderation is afraid to have other material posted with out approve this proves they themselves are in conflict with the lies they promote. It is like Hitler said we tell the people what we need them to believe eliminate any outside information that will stop the cause.

Good discussion Anonymous, Rob, Eric.Question: If an object is lifted upto the edge of space(atmosphere of the earth and stayed for a time and then come back to earth, what will happen to it's position relative to earth? This could be accomplished as Felix's Space diving.

I just finished reading your article on the earth being stationary. I agree that it is not rotating!I just did the math on the speed that the geostationary satellites would have to be travelling in order for them to maintain the same position as respects the uplink station on earth, IF the earth were rotating.Using the given data that the circumference of the earth is 24,901 miles at the equator, and the geostationary satellites are orbiting the earth at 22,000 miles up, these satellites would have to be moving at a speed of 6,794 mph!! The simple formula is C = pi times diameter, and one can determine that the radius from the centre of the earth to the equator is 3,965 miles. Add 22,000 miles to that figure and the satellites are 25,965 miles from the centre of the earth. It is easy then to determine that the circumference of the path of the satellites is 163,060 miles divided by 24 hours, and one comes up with the speed of travel for the satellites of 6,794 miles per hour!These satellites cannot be changing their tilt angle or the uplink signal will not be directed at the receiver on the satellite. So, try to imagine a satellite travelling at nearly 7,000 mph and actually not tilting in any direction. Maintaining this speed of 6,794 mph is another big problem to grapple with,IMO, as any significant deviation in speed,whether too fast or too slow, will result in the uplink signal missing its target!!It is much easier for me to visualize a scenario of a fixed earth and a much more simpler task of just maintaining a satellite in a fixed position at a fixed altitude and at a specific tilt. When the 6794 mph thingy is thrown in, it becomes more difficult to comprehend, for me, anyways.This is another good argument for your article you might be interested in!Regards,Doug

Hey Doug, thanks for the message. I've just posted it as a comment to "The Earth is Not Moving" article discussion. I'm not particularly mathematically inclined, but I agree that the idea of satellites traveling at 7,000mph seems a bit far-fetched. Thanks for bringing more evidence to the table! Peace

Thank you Eric for your informative and thought provoking post as a student of Culture and spirituality it is refreshing to see someone thinking outside of the Fallacious propaganda promoted nowadays. In order for materialist men to further there agenda of exploitment and greed so many untruths are propagated it is only by sincere efforts of people such as yourself these deceptions are uncovered.

As a fellow seeker of truth my travels took me to a teacher of the ancient bhakti yoga system. The following statements are a perspective I have gleaned from that association.By no means do I claim to be an authority of any sought ,this offering is simply from my own perspective of faith in order to encourage anybody who wishes to benefit from my own experience.

In the srimad bhagavatam of ancient vedic progressive spiritual indian culture http://srimadbhagavatam.com/en the model for the universe is described as having a pole star known as sirius or the dog star by modern scholars, this star is fixed and indeed modern navigators still use this fixed star as a reference nowadays.Therefore the stars and planetary systems revolve around this star like a chandelier (for lack of a better description) according to the vedic cosmological model.

The earthly plane or planet if you prefer is described as bhu mandal and is considered to be the middle planetary system. So in that theory there is no contradiction to the earth being central amongst the 14 planetary systems which is described by vedic literatures.

The sun planet is described like a chariot which is driven in an orbit throughout the planetary systems SB 5.21.19: My dear King, in his orbit through Bhū-maṇḍala, the sun-god traverses a distance of 95,100,000 yojanas [760,800,000 miles] at the speed of 2,000 yojanas and two krośas [16,004 miles] in a moment. http://vedabase.net/sb/5/21/en

Anyway I have tried to somewhat explain vedic cosmology ofc such information is inconceivable for the common man and is only a drop in the ocean of vedic knowledge.Due to the age of kali or age of quarrel and hypocrisy this knowledge is generally inaccessible because of atheistic influences.Kali-yuga is the current age at the moment as described in the srimad bhagavatam.

Good luck I hope this inductive spiritual perspective from the vedic thought helps those who have come to realise that imperfect men with imperfect senses, using a empirical system based on deceit and greed will never help our souls.Our souls are crying out for nourishment in this age of darkness, nevertheless there is hope.

Bhagavad gita explains "To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium." Indeed a hidden incarnation appeared 500 yrs ago called Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu as a renunciate he inculcated god consciousness and was of a resplendant golden complexion.

A golden age is predicted for the next 500 yrs after the intial expedient purification of sinful reactions, going on nowadays. This movement is predicted to flourish after that intial period of purfication, about another 40 yrs or so.For true seekers of self realisation, enlightenment I recommend one try to find a teacher in this tradition in order to nullify the ignorance of this age and receive true knowledge of the self and nature.

vedic knowledge source base - http://vedabase.net/en2

If I have offended anyone with these suppositions it was not my intention to disturb you simply to offer an alternative perspective based on my own experience. I wish you all well and hope your experiences may give you the desired fruit of your hearts. I especially thk Eric Dubay for creating such a wonderful topic whereby the establishment is challenged for the betterment of mankind.

Hey Vamsi, thanks for the great comment! I've spent the day on Vedabase reading the Bhagavad Gita for the third time, definitely one of my favorite books... is it the oldest text in recorded history? If not, anyone know what is?

Hey Eric just thought I would pop back into say hi, I didnt realise you were so favorable to the bhagavad gita!(im not sure when it was first recorded yet it was spoken roughly 5000 yrs ago around the start of the kaliyuga)

I made a mistake in that post the Brahma-Vaivarta Purana predicts the golden age goes for 10000 yrs and it started 500yrs ago when lord caitanya was born anyway I doubt many people will be bothered by that and all my other inconsistencies.

Personalism is a hard pill to swallow and many people misconstrue the gita to have some mayavad or oneness in god interpretation ie we are all god. So if you don't want to fall prey to this last snare of illusion whereby you consider yourself god even though you probably suffer from toothaches and although good looking no doubt,I wouldnt say on the same level as god lol- anyway if you like the gita and would like to go deeper, try and understand Acyintya bheda bheda tattva as espoused by lord caitanya " we are simultaneously one with the lord but different" ie one in quality but different quantitatively.

Hey if your interest doesn't extend that far no problem maybe you knew all these ideas as well, In that case I apologize for assuming it only makes an ass out of u and me hehehe ass- u -me.

If I have managed to pique your interest and believe me if I can pique anyones interest it is a miracle, but if by my gurudevs grace I have said anything coherent enough to appeal to your better judgement here is a link to my gurudevs website for further illumination on bhakti yoga .

Just wanted to add some information on alternate paradigms. Viktor Schauberger, Pierlugia Ighina Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe and Walter Russell are all great geniuses who had many insights into the earth’s etheric or subtle energies. If one could put all their observations into on overall concise theory it would be quite revolutionary.

In fact Schauberger believed along with the ancient philosophers understood that the earth’s atmosphere was responsible for our planets heat and light.The theory was that the earth’s atmosphere acts as a lens to convert solar radiation into light and heat, therefore once one entered outer space there is no visible light or heat. This is confirmed by the fact the farther one moves away from the center of the earth out into the stratosphere the colder and darker it becomes. Also the earth is closer to the Sun during winter than summer which is another contradiction of traditional astrophysics. Now Schauberger believed the Sun was a COLD /Dark gaseous body which expelled etheric energy in a spiral form that our atmosphere then converted to heat and light.

There is a chapter in the book "The Awesome life-force" by Cater on this subject of astronauts inability to observe any stars in space. Basically the reason NASA never shows Stars in the background of their photographs is because there is no atmosphere to convert the starlight into the visible spectrum. Notice also that the astronauts in the space shuttle never take shots of the Sun, and if one does observe any starlight it is seen through the rim of the earth’s atmosphere.

Another observation is all of NASAS' moon photos have a completely dark sky in the background except on the very contour of the moons’ rim, where the slight atmosphere is thicker than normal and a few points of starlight become visible. There is a tremendous amount of details about this alternate paradigm that needs research, I believe the NASA has gone to the moon and other planets, yet keep ninety percent of their finding secret.

Another aspect is that the earth is shaped like a hollow globe, and it is the light that recreates itself similar to waves in the ocean by a pattern a specific pattern that accounts for our observations in astronomy. Think of a large hologram that completely recreates itself in trillions of a second, or understand that waves in the ocean never move towards the shore but simply recreate their motion in water giving the illusion of movement.

I just wanna say your article is very well written and informative. I've always questioned a rotating Earth since I was a kid. In fact I questioned lots of things I was taught in school. When I was a kid we would go camping and I would lay on the ground just staring up at the sky and watched how everything moved and never thought for a second that we were the one's moving because we aren't.

The other thing is about all these supposed planets. Now there are these hundreds of supposed planets. What exactly constitutes a planet anyway? Alot of those they even call planets are balls of gas. Maybe they're actually stars.

Anyway, I'm with you and tired of all the lies. We aren't moving, they cannot nor ever will prove we are. Every single video I've ever seen;satellites, the space station, space shuttle are the one's always moving. They never just hover over the Earth. You'd think they would try this and show video but they don't. They instead move around Earth counter-clockwise to create the illusion that it is rotating.

Hi Osukaru, Foucalt's Pendulum, like the Coriolis Effect just proves that either we are moving OR the aether is moving, but cannot prove or disprove which.

"Since Foucault’s pendulum and the Coriolis effect are closely related, they can be considered together. Foucault’s pendulum, which was constructed in Paris in 1851, was a pendulum consisting of a 200 foot long flexible wire on which a heavy iron weight was suspended so as to be free to oscillate in any direction. It was found that the oscillating pendulum never retraced its path but at each swing apparently deviated: if the experiment is conducted in the northern hemisphere it deviates to the right, and in the southern hemisphere it will deviate to the left. The so-called “Coriolis effect” is similar: a shell from a long range gun, aimed at a target to the south of it, will land to the right of the target in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere. Although the apparently obvious conclusion to be drawn from these two experiments is that the earth is rotating anticlockwise when observed from a fixed point above the North Pole, on further examination the obviousness is seen to be an illusion. It is at first not easy to grasp the fact that Foucault’s pendulum and the Coriolis effect only demonstrate relative motion and do not demonstrate which, if either, of the two objects is at rest, but careful thought will show it to be true. All that the experiments show is that there are forces which act on bodies in motion relative to each other, and that either the earth is rotating, or the inertial field of the “rest of the universe” is rotating round the earth, or some combination of these movements is occurring. Certainly a rotating earth would account for the phenomenon equally well (in this case the fixed stars would be preventing the ether from going round the earth at the same speed as the latter rotated), but it does not account for it better. The phenomenon cannot therefore logically be used to prove any one of the alternatives." -N. Martin Gwynne

Well since heliocentrists have made the unproven assumption the Earth already moves, the Air must also move(because of gravity+friction) or else we would experience 1030mph speed (in the equator for example).

Now, here is the flaw. Heliocentrists, in your theory the Air has gained his OWN constant speed, 1030mph(in the equator). He is not a package carried by Earth's wagon, as a man is carried inside a wagon with "200"mph but this man stands still. The Air moves himself with 1030mph all around.

In other words...

A man that stands still inside a train going at 200mph, may travel at 200mph but he doesnt move himself with 200mph, he is just carried 200mph away!

On the other hand, in Air Rotation hypothesis, the Air ROTATES HIMSELF with 1030mph! He DOESNT STAND STILL. It doesnt matter if we use the relativistic excuse that the difference of speed between Air and Earth is 0mph! In Air Rotation theory, the Air has his OWN speed of 1030mph apart from the Earth, he doesnt stand still as the air that is carried inside a wagon!

So he can only have one motion, his own motion. Since we feel winds and see clouds in various directions and with various velocities, it follows that the Air doesnt rotate at a one way constant speed of 1030mph in the equator. Therefore if the Air doesnt rotate, the Earth doesnt rotate then, cause we would experience a dizzy rotation of 1030mph for example(in the equator) and 1030mph winds.

I see the mistake heliocentrists make is on considering the Air as CARRIED by the atmosphere.

In their theory, from the moment that the friction of moving ground molecules with air molecules sets the Air in motion, the AIR has his OWN motion. He is NOT carried like the air inside a wagon.

One of them admitted that the Air gains his distinct motion, of course relying upon Earth's motion, cause if Earth stopped the Air would too. But at least he admitted the distinct motion of the Air, in his model.

So using their relativity, #it would be 0mph difference for the Air#it would be 0mph difference for the Earth #since both move at the same speed.

For the Air the Earth wouldnt move, and for the Earth the Air wouldnt move, since they would run at the same velocity.

But since they have separate motions and one doesnt carry the other, for an observer upon the Earth it would be 1030mph rotating wind at the equator.

Im sure heliocentrists gonna laugh, but I dont care if they get it or not.

Thanks for the update Christa :) Let them laugh, people are always more likely to believe the lies than to believe they've been lied to. Anyone who objectively looks at the evidence with a clean slate can clearly see the Earth is motionless. Peace

Thanks Eric, you have already pointed what I say in this message - Travel in the opposite direction then.

This is my last reply to them.

<<Yes, I had already guessed what the answer would be - "we move as fast as 1030mph so we feel no wind, relativity". Nice try.

The problem is

In their model the air has his own real rotating motion, he is not carried(he's just "turned on" by the Earth's supposed rotation). So its supposed to be a real 1030mph wind from west to east. They say the Earth rotates with the same speed 1030mph from west to east, so since we're carried by her at the same direction with the same speed we feel no west to east 1030mph wind. The wind can't reach us, he isnt faster.

[b]WRONG. You forgot we're talking about a real wind. Try to move the opposite direction from east to west then. Let aeroplanes travel from east to west. DONT FORGET YOURE ON THE TOP OF THE "TRAIN". YOU ARE UPON THE GROUND IN THE OPEN AIR, WHO IS NOT THE INNER MOTIONLESS AIR CARRIED BY A "TRAIN".[/b]

You forgot you use the Air's supposed rotation from west to east as proof that you dont feel the Earth's rotation from west to east. So is the Air or the Earth that takes you 1030mph eastward? If its the Air, then you still have problem travelling in the opposite [westward] direction against 1030mph wind(since its a real air motion). If its the Earth, the same applies as we have already shown.>>

Do you have an old version(classic pdf or doc, no latest versions) of your Asbestos book? Scribd makes my pc to crash

Im learning more. Too sad that I can have access to thousands of heliocentrism files in my mother language, while 0 files of geocentrism. I opened a subject for geocentrism in a forum and both atheists and pseudo-christians fought me like insane. I call them pseudochristians because they always try to adjust God's word with modern beliefs, so they consider God's word inferior and changeable, unable to see that physics is what changes from time to time.

Hopefully Im learning more on the subject, despite the fact its difficult to understand experiments in english language. Air rotation foolish theory is of my favorite subjects. It totally disproves the Earth's rotation foolish theory. I hadnt realize how crazy it is to believe that: 1)Air as a gas, with random moving molecules which dont touch each other, would revolve making perfect circular motions at a constant speed.2)we would have various weather patterns and winds, if this crazy rotation was real. How this crazy speed would stop, so that we have winds and clouds moving in different directions(instead of only west to east)? Its believing exactly that this maniac "ghost" eastward 1700kmph wind would decelerate, so that a breeze would appear out of nowhere.

Hey Christa, you're absolutely right about the motion of air... it's such common sense that people cannot believe they've been duped. As for Asbestos Head, try downloading it from Lulu if you can't open the Scribd link:

Eric, thank you very much. I downloaded the pdf from an internet station. I hope my old Acrobat Reader version will open it. I guess its about geocentricity, am I right?

Yes, Air Rotation is the most strange claim. Lets say gravity keeps the air down. How could friction set the air in line in a one way constant speed, since gas molecules move randomly and are far from each other?

You're right about gases and air rotation, it's the most absurd claim, and that's why I call it "magic velcro." And sorry to disappoint but Asbestos Head isn't about Geocentricity at all :( It's a humorous philosophical fiction novella. I hope you'll still enjoy it, but it's quite different from my other books. Peace

With the kind permission of Dr Yassher Shaban, the author of "Verses of Deus - Knockdown of Heliocentric Model series 1", I have uploaded an excerpt from his book, namely his preface on the chapters and the whole second chapter dealing with Air Rotation thesis.

This book is a must for heliocentrists and geocentrists. Its the first serious scientific case for geocentrism. Both groups are welcome to read this ultra rare and astonishing book from a real and awarded scientist, deciding for themselves the model of cosmos motion.

Gravity being such as it is has the effect of pulling massive objects together. All objects of mass around the earth are drawn toward the centre of the earth. The sun's mass makes up about 99% of the mass of our solar system. It is huge. The gravitational effect is that all other objects in the solar system are drawn toward the sun but because of their momentum never fall straight toward the sun but travel in a elliptical orbit. If any object was stationary (no momentum) it would fall into the sun.

I am open to all alternative theories, and I read this and nearly all the comments with interest. I respect your point of view, but I am suspicious of your objectivity because you t made ad hominen attacks when questioned by Ben and others who made well-reasoned arguments politely. That strikes me as showing insecurity in your position.

I don't know enough about the subject to discuss your ideas, but it also seems your motivation is what drives you. My belief in the importance of humanity, of life, and of the marvelous creation is not bothered at all by whether we revolve around the sun, or whether it revolves around us. If your geocentric theory is true, it will undoubtedly lead to more advances in practical scientific applications, and I won't be bothered a bit that the scientific world would be turned upside down - after all, it's happened before.

On the other hand, you haven't provided anything too terribly convincing - it seems to me to be rather a matter of perspective, and largely inconsequential unless one's view of God or the spiritual really rests on the geocentric view, an assertion that seems to be merely assumed, and which I do not share.

In any case, I salute your willingness to think for yourself and question everything - and whether you are right on your particular ideas, I think you are right to not merely accept conventional wisdom.

Question everything, but I hope we all remember that none of this is as important as how we treat each other and whether we respect life.

first of all, intersting website, I've just discovered it yet. Anyhow I would like to say I agree for the most part with Tim Garcia, I have also not read all comments, but a good part of them, so I won't join the actual discussion, however, I'd like to add some remarks.

You claim to be interested in the truth and from what I can see, especially concerning other topics I won't get into right here, you appear to be quite successfull.

In several of the upper comments, remarks about "philosophy" have been made, and by coincidence, I happen to have a very small amount of understanding of what "philosophy" means."Philosophy" is not some sort of "mindeset" or "standpoint" to argue from. To understand, or start understanding what "philosophy" actually means, you'd want to read quite a few books. (e.g. A History of Western Philosophy -- Bertrand Russell)

Anyhow, I'd like to present some realization which is worth thinking about.If I understand you correctly you say, that one should question everything, I go along with that.That also applies to what you think is true.What is "truth"? Is truth defined by "consense"? Or correspondence? Or coherence? There are conflicting theories of what "truth" actually is, they have their advantages/disadvantages, but it is certainly not "defined" what "truth" is. Let's assume, we have an understanding of truth, let's say, for a proposition p to be true, p must correspondent with reality (if such thing as reality exists, let's say there is something outside of our mind i.e. a "world") and p must be coherent with all other propositions which have been found to be true i.e. all propositons to be found true must be free of contradiction.(If you like to learn more about this, "Theory of Realization" and "Logic" are the philosophical disciplines you're looking for)

You, Eric, claim, that "the aether is proven" (November 5, 2011 at 8:08 PM) shortly before you say Einstein has presented a "theory".First of all you're right on the latter, he has provided a theorie, but, so have you.

Proof in the meaning of deductive, undenieable, reasonable, proof i.e. the opposite is impossible, only exists in mathematics and logic.

This whole debate "orbits" around some empirical observations, which indeed, are based on experience, whether it is the conformists theories, or your theories, which indeed are very old.The geocentric view was generally accepted with Aristotle, because an explanation (among others) was given for the "planets" which, compared to "stars" in repeating fashion, move from one to another side, then change for a periode of time, move backwards, and then move forward again. This phenomenon was explained with "epicicles" these "planets" move on, I am sure you have stumbled upon these in your research.

Anyhow, I am not an expert on any sort of those theories, I'd just wanted to make you aware of the fact (if such things exist) that the geocentrical view is a theory, it is verifieable, but not prooveable, more importantly, it is also falsifiable (You'd want to read Carl Popper and Rudof Carnap for an introduction into Philosophy of Science).

I took the time (which I normally don't) to write this comment because I feel confident that you will understand me.

I just wanted to say: For anyone tempted to debate this issue with the author, please, do not waste your time. There is a principle governing the thought of the the conspiracy theorist whereby any evidence contrary to the belief held is distorted in the mind and used, paradoxically, to ratify their belief in whatever it is they are invested. I can't remember the name of the thing, but you can see it in action in the comments here. Early on, a commenter named Ben tried to engage the author in debate: at first, it went fairly reasonably, as the author still had means to argue by approaching the issue from different directions. Once everything had been narrowed down, and he had no other rational means of debate, he fell back on a tautology; that is, the idea of the "proven" and "immutable" fact of the aether. It's funny, my browser tells me that aether is misspelled, as it is so irrelevant in this day and age, the internet does not recognize its existence. Take care everybody :)

Imagine that you are walking alongside a friend, at the same speed. You can reach across and touch his shoulder without any difficulty, at any time you wish, because his shoulder is not moving -- with respect to you. (It is still moving with respect to the ground, but that does not affect your relative speed.)

For the same reason, we don't feel the atmosphere moving (as a whole), nor do we feel Earth's surface move, because of zero RELATIVE motion. Everything on Earth's surface moves at the same rate with respect to the center.

This is elementary physics, folks -- which has clearly not been studied by many of the commenters here. You wonder how a satellite can move at 6878 mph? Well, anything will move at that speed if you throw it hard enough! (The rockets that we use to emplace satellites do, indeed, throw things hard enough.)That 6878 mph is what is needed to circumnavigate the sphere of the Earth in exactly one day, at the altitude of 22,240 miles. (Check out Kepler's Third Law, as well as Newton's Law of Gravitation.)That speed also gives the impression that the satellite is stationary, because indeed it does not move -- with respect to the ground. That's why it's able to keep itself pointed at its designated antennas -- it does not move with respect to them.(Herman Potocnik calculated this in 1928, and in 1945 Arthur Clarke proposed such an orbit for telecommunications satellites. It's not a very new idea.)

Marshall Hall, now, has a rather different belief. He believes that that the apparent motionlessness of these satellites is ACTUAL motionlessness. Well, you may ask, why do they not fall to the ground? Anything that is not supported, and that is not moving with respect to the ground, falls straight down.Well, Mr. Hall told me that he believes that God has given these satellites a special exemption from the law of gravity, so they get to stay up there while not moving.This is an unusually specific intervention on God's part. Is human telecommunication so important that it rates a continuing miracle? Then, if so, why do not the other satellites that are used in communications get to be divinely supported? What's so special about that 22,240-mile-high location?

(Note that Mr. Hall has some other problems with astrophysics. He thinks that our measurements of stellar distances are too high, by a factor of perhaps 25,000. This, however, would put stars such as Alpha Centauri closer than Neptune. That star is most definitely not so close.)

Also, at least one of the numbers in the blog post is WAY wrong. It is stated, contemptuously, that the Milky Way is claimed to be moving through the cosmos at over 670,000,000 mph. Nonsense! that figure is the approximate speed of light, which nothing material can attain. The Galaxy's speed is actually about 343 mph, or 0.18% of the speed of light.

Go get your science and math books, folks. You'll find treasures therein, much more worthwhile than notions that are based solely on humans' limited ability to directly perceive.

This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. Firstly, the Earth as a planet does not have enough gravitational pull to have everything in the known universe orbit it. It is a tiny, little rock in the middle of nowhere. The sun is so much more massive than the Earth that the Earth couldn't pull it into orbit without being destroyed. Someone take whoever wrote this to the moon and let them just watch the Earth rotate. And no, the moon orbiting around Earth would not give the illusion of rotation. The moon's orbit speed is far too slow to give the illusion of earth rotating at the speed that it does (1 rotation per 24 hours), since the moon makes its full orbit in a period of around 27 days.Secondly, what about retrograde motion of planets viewed from Earth. How can you explain that? The planets do not make small circles within their orbits. The motion of Earth merely gives the illusion of that, since Earth passes by the outer planets during it's orbit.Thirdly, what about all the other objects in the universe that Earth would have to pull in its orbit. The sun is a million times more massive than the earth, but the largest star we have ever discovered is VY Canis Majoris. That star is 1 billion times more massive than our sun. The Earth could never hope to pull THAT into its orbit, let alone the sun. It's also so far away that the gravity between the two objects is almost zero.I could go on forever debunking your stupid little theory, but I have other things to do.

So many lies so little time to refute them. Truth is --you don't have to get creative with truth because when you assemble all you've gathered everything meshes.

So if we establish the planet is not moving at 1000mph ---no one has hypothesized any vastly different alternatives--- like alternative dimensional realities or maybe existence is just in God's imagination so He can change it all up moment to moment or all of us on the flat earth collectively change existence---by the way if we aren't moving what's under us or behind the earth?

So will try posting again. What is truth? You feel it when everything is gathered and analyzed--it all meshes.

So the earth is not rotating ---no one has offered alternative thoughts --like alternate dimensions or are we in God's imagination that he changes at will or a collective consciousness universe we all can alter momemt to moment, etc. If it's a flat earth what's underneath or behind us? Where are we--what is this we are experiencing---a cosmic game?

What in the world is this nonsense? I understand questioning things, after all, that is a part of the scientific method of systems. You honestly think that the earth doesnt rotate on its axis? Have you not heard of a Foucault Pendulum? It proves the rotation of the earth in the simplest form. A Pendulum at different latitudes will complete a rotation in different times based on the earths rotation at that point. Hence why a pendulum at the equator never rotates because it is always the direction of the rotation but a pendulum at either pull will rotate because it is the center point of the axis of rotation. Simple experiments prove all of this and disprove a static earth with all things revolving around it. If you think that gravity is real and I hope you do, it would only stand to reason that an entire universe of mass rotating around our entire planet would actually destroy us just from force alone. If you really believe that evidence supporting your theory is being removed or hidden, try some experiments like scientists do.

I can't even comment this things. Go out of your anti-scientific shell and search for the coriolis effect. The only proof needed that proves that we are spinning with our planet. And don't dare citing Einstein, he was a genius and you aren't. Also, don't even dare attacking my english.

sooo... until and beyond "NASA" you say no one made pictures, observations/measurements etc.? Let me guess:

1. You're an american2. Christian3. Proud of both4. Never had the chance of proper schooling so you've developed some frustration as no one really recognises nor credits the "university of youtube" you've attended hence your problem against demonstrations, use of logic or mathematics, physics etc.5. Because your imaginary friend is on your side you don't give a sh!t on opinions or demonstrations so you just let people waste their time trying to educate you so you can just be rude to them so you can have some sense of satisfaction.

As obviously you're not a pilot nor an engineer I hope that you don't mind leaving here some advice for your consideration:

- don't tell your kids this story, unless is bedtime stories time.- when talking about Newton or others take some time and study some of their mainstream works, Lex Prima comes to mind, you seem unaware of how inertia works.- don't breed. Had enough Dark Ages around.

the moon has something like a 27.3 day cycle around the earth... the way that they only take 12 ish hour lapses only allows us to see about a 1/50 of a cycle... this would make the moon and stars seem to "orbit" equally quickly while the moon is actually(from our view piont) orbiting at star angular velocity+/- ((1/27.3) x (SAV))plus or minus because i can't remember which direction the moon moves around the earth.if the "scientist" recorded for 28 consecutive days he would have figured that out because the moon would have hung out with different constilations each night.

Hi everyone, i was shocked to read about all this, but then today i came across the tamarak mines mystery, which proves that the earth must be rotating right? How else cam i explain the fact that the ropes diverged like swinga on a carninval ride do when swinging, here is the link to a picture http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/swing.jpg

The Tamarak mines mystery, like Foucalt's pendulum is not proof of Earth's motion. Just like Foucalt's pendulum, the results could be equally attributed to a rotating Earth (ala heliocentricism) or a rotating aether (ala geocentricism). If you watch the Sagnac video I posted or look up the Michelson-Gale or Kantor experiments, you'll see that the aether has been confirmed to exist and rotate, while the Earth is motionless.

Beyond that, the article you took the picture from mentions other possible explanations such as wind drafts, magnetic ores, gravitational attraction to the walls, etc. and says that Ray Palmer the main writer on these experiments put his results in "Flyer Saucers" magazine which he edited and "had a reputation for embellishing stories based on a minimum of facts. There's ample evidence that Palmer is an unreliable source in these matters, for he loved to embellish and skew facts to make a good story. Geologists I've talked to scratch their heads and suspect that the story is a myth."

Either way, myth or not, the results described do not prove the Earth's motion. Like Foucalt's pendulum, this experiment does not differentiate between the movement of Earth or the movement of the Aether and so either one explains the results equally well.

Dear Eric,I am reading your blog frequently and always liked the mixed topics you cover.But I was quite irritated by this thread, not only because of the topic you adress but also of the way you react towards certain posters who don't agree with your standpoint.

Please do yourself and your readers a favor and reflect your way of handling a 'potential' truth more thoroughly.

Since you are not an astronomer, you have to relay on second hand information. And since you are not an astronomer you have limited ways to rank this information, no matter if they come from geocentrists or heliocentrists, in a next step.

Regardless, you grant the geocentrist's view a higher credibility. Certainly that is your good right, but you should grant those who are in favor of the heliocentrist's view the same right. They are not your enemy. In an ideal case, both parties can work together to find the truth. By exchanging arguments. Debating.

If you consider your standpoint, regardless of not being an expert in that subject, as supreme, no such debate can take place and the path to truthfulness will be blocked.

Good for the Powers That Be, bad for those who are dedicated to the pursuit of truth.

This is your blog, no doubt about that. You can handle that in any way you want. But your credibility will suffer if you continue to cling on that geocentrist's view WITHOUT a careful reflection of your reader's arguments!

There where quite some good arguments in favor of the heliocentrist's view which you reject by refering to several links, one of which containing about a dozen lines of text for an alternative theory on the moon phases...and that's it?!

I'm always in for a good conspiracy theory (If it's well researched) but for me, this explanation here seems a lot more credible: http://science.howstuffworks.com/moon4.htm

Don't get me wrong - I also think that many official explanations and versions for different issues are deceptions or plain lies. But to me, the heliocentric system is not part of it.

We might have not understood how gravity really works and I'm also sure that some of Einstein's theories are not flawless...but heliocentrism is imho a least more plausible that geocentrism.

To my mind, that doesn't constrict the magnificence of creation even a bit. Earth and everything on it will be one-of-a-kind, no matter if it's the center of or somewhere else in the universe.

If you really want to know some expert's view on that matter, you will certainly find some upright person willing to provide information including a review of your sources.

Untill you didn't do that, you should be more careful to claim the 'more truthfull' truth. Everthing else would be dogmatism.

Nevertheless, keep up the good work and take care! And always be open for a decent debate ;)

They are not your enemy. In an ideal case, both parties can work together to find the truth. By exchanging arguments. Debating. Always be open for a decent debate ;)

That's what this entire comment section has been is a debate where reader's comments and challenges have allowed more of the truth to come out. Your comment is patronizing, telling me to debate when I'm already debating and telling me my reader's are not my enemies when I never said or thought they were.

I was quite irritated by this thread, not only because of the topic you adress but also of the way you react towards certain posters who don't agree with your standpoint.

Thanks for letting me know you're so easily irritated. I don't know why you care or feel the need to lecture my blogging etiquette but I hope you're satisfied and my response hasn't let you down :)

Thanks for your reply Eric. Yet you did not adress my remarks about objectivity.

The point I was trying to make is that you act like you were the bearer of the 'only truth', while having no substantial education on math and astronomy. Regardless, you put yourself above those who have or those who are arguing contrary to your standpoint.

Example?

"Thanks for the update Christa :) Let them laugh, people are always more likely to believe the lies than to believe they've been lied to. Anyone who objectively looks at the evidence with a clean slate can clearly see the Earth is motionless. PeaceMarch 11, 2013 at 6:34 PM"

So basically what you are saying here is that those who can not see the 'truth', are blind to the 'facts'. You don't even allow for an other possible truth. That's dogmatism.

"Hey Doug, thanks for the message. I've just posted it as a comment to "The Earth is Not Moving" article discussion. I'm not particularly mathematically inclined, but I agree that the idea of satellites traveling at 7,000mph seems a bit far-fetched. Thanks for bringing more evidence to the table! PeaceJanuary 23, 2013 at 8:33 PM"

Here you are creating evidence for your theory. You don't even seem to try to objectively reflect your argument. The speed of a geostationary object (e.g. a satellite) is 6,935 mph. Look it up!

I don't want to show you up. I am writing this because if you would act like this in a professional debate, e.g. amongst PhDs etc., you could easily be made look like a fool. IF your were correct in the first place would not count anymore in such a situation. THUS you wouldn't convince anybody out there with your theory.

You apply double standards. And things like that neither help finding the truth nor do they advance any 'truth movement'. It is exactly the point of attack where 'they' discredit 'conspiracy theorists', no matter if the theory is right or wrong.

You should not only be critical about the world around you and other people, also observe yourself critically.

No Henry, that's called having discernment and conviction. I've had the heliocentric lie forced down my throat like everyone else for my entire life, and unlike most brainwashed dogmatists, I "allowed for another possible truth," the truth of geocentricism. Now that I've studied it for years, I've found it stands up to the test of reason/evidence, and even in these debates in the comments section, nobody can prove heliocentricism as it goes against all experience, experiments and common sense.

The speed of a geostationary object (e.g. a satellite) is 6,935 mph. Look it up!

I'm sure that's what they say, Henry, I don't contest that's what they want you to believe. I'm contesting that that's what's actually happening. Either this satellite is traveling 6,935 mph in perfect sync with Earth's 1,038 mph rotation, OR neither one is moving, you can't prove which:

I am writing this because if you would act like this in a professional debate, e.g. amongst PhDs etc., you could easily be made look like a fool.

Thanks for your concern, but I'm not afraid of people with letters after their name, all it means is they have deeper universe-ity brainwashing. And accusing me of not critically thinking when I'm critical enough to hold a position against 99.9% of what the world accepts as a given truth shows that I obviously have the ability to think for myself, stand up and speak out about what I've found.

P.S. Notice in the video how the clouds don't even move after 24 hours! Anyone else find it strange that clouds all over the world don't move or change even the slightest bit in 24 hours?? I reserve the right to remain skeptical of all such supposed footage as it goes against my common sense.

If that video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UbKnxyKEQghad stars in the background, it'd have been perfect as a proof!

The comments on it say that earth "appears" stationless because the Satellite is orbiting at the same rate of its "revolving". But if we saw the stars also stationary, then the video is a complete proof of Geocentricity.

I've read at several sites, including this one, that the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment is proof that the Earth is motionless. This site even makes the statement that the experimet's purpose was to prove that the Earth is moving thru space. However, that is ot true! The purpose of the experiment was to prove the existence of a medium called aether (or ether, depending on your take on the origin of the word). The failure of the experiment just proved that this medium does not exists, and has NOTHING to do with proving that the Earth is not moving! Science has advanced, and we not accept the idea that there is no invisible medium in space, which was first proposed as the scientist a long time ago figured that light need something to travel thru, just as sound waves require something to move thru. This theory of an ether has been proven false, and we now know that no medium is required.

Oh, and by the way, there is NO evidence that the Earth is stationary! To say it's stationary in space, and not rotating, or moving around the sun, is ludicrous.

Hey IBN, you're right about the stars, though I question the authenticity of the whole clip seeing how none of the clouds move/change even the slightest bit over 24 hours.

And for Jeff, the Michelson-Morley experiment attempted and failed to detect the motion of the Earth around the Sun. The subsequent Michelson-Gale experiment then succeeded in detecting and measuring the aether/firmament to within 2% accuracy. Then the Sagnac, Kantor and Airy experiments all further confirmed both the existence of the aether and the fact that it is the stars moving relative to Earth and not the Earth moving relative to the stars. Watch the videos I posted on Sagnac and Airy's experiments. Peace

Eric, I certainly didn't want to deny you your ability to think FOR yourself, what I was trying to say only is to REFLECT yourself and your thoughts once more - in this case. And that is not an order, just a friendly advise. I guess you would act likewise in my position...In a way, you are doing the same with your blog/with this thread.

I've had the heliocentric lie forced down my throat like everyone else for my entire life

I am able to relate to your point, I as well hate it to be lied to and that's one reason for being here on your blog in the first place.

But it's one thing to make people believe in some towers collapsing in free-fall or promoting chemotherapy as the best way to fight cancer and another to fake the entire perception and depiction of the universe around us. I am certain that there are quite some flawed theories out there about HOW the universe works, but to me, that does not effect the very location of the earth.

I watched that satellite video. Impressive! But to me it doesn't prove the earth not moving. This satellite 'flies' in a geosynchronous orbit, thus is not moving relatively to the earth. Consequently, earth doesn't move from the satellite's perspective.

>> http://www.givetheworld.com/aboutEchoStar11.asp <<

Furthermore, the lensflare effect is an indicator that the location of the earth/satellite is changing relatively to the sun if you think about it.Also, the clouds are moving, not fast, but if you skip through the vid in full screen you can definitely see it. This would correspond with cloud radar in a smaller scale: e.g.: http://www.sat24.com/en/eu

I skipped through the moon-vid as well, but here you don't need to convince me - I also do not believe in the officially promoted moon landing story.

Definitely, NASA is a fishy organisation (and "A Colombian Enterprise to Endeavor for the Discovery of Atlantis. . . and all Challengers shall be destroyed."), but it's one thing to fake a moon landing and another to make not only 99,9% of the people but also 99 out of 100 astronomers (who actually have the ability to verify) believe that the earth is revolving (and rotating around the sun) while it actually isn't.

I myself reconsidered heliocentrism after reading this thread and that's a good thing - but having done that, I am still in favor for the 'theory of the masses'. And sometimes, the masses can be correct.

Have a pleasant day,Henry

PS: Just to be sure: You don't mean geocentrism as a frame of reference but as the only frame, do you?! So in your theory, the whole universe rotates around earth, with all its implications (e.g. being the absolute center of the universe etc.)?!

Hey Henry, thanks for clarifying your position. Based on the Michelson-Gale, Sagnac, Kantor and Airy's experiments (the results of which have remained undisputed, simply ignored by the heliocentric community) it is clear that the stars are moving with relation to the Earth and not the other way around. I also posted an experiment you can do in your backyard to prove Earth has no orbital motion around the Sun. Our common sense every day perspective and the results of several experiments all suggest the Earth to be motionless while the Sun, Moon, and Stars revolve around us.

As it is the heliocentric theory might as well be called the "Acentric" theory anyway. Heliocentrists/NASA say that the Sun isn't even the center of the Universe, but that it's just one of many solar systems in one of many galaxies in an expanding Universe whose edges we haven't yet found. And if they haven't found the edge of the Universe then they can't say where the center of the Universe is either. So even in their rendition, the Sun isn't actually the center of anything, and all motion is relative to all other motion. And if that's the case, if the "heliocentric" model is really just the "acentric" model, and all "central" bodies are equally arbitrary and only "relatively central," why not model/measure the heavens with Us, Earth, Our actual vantage point, as the central entity? NASA even admits to using Geocentric calculations for launching all their satellites and spacecraft.

Heliocentricism was given to us by patriarchal pagan "sun-worshipers" who revere father sky over mother earth.

All objects are moving. The notion that an object can be at rest is absurd and impossible; everything is moving/vibrating. Both heliocentric and geocentric models are correct at the same time. The Sun does revolve around the Earth and all the other planets, while at the same time all the planets revolve around the sun.

Okay, so technically, the Earth does not revolve around the Sun at all... it revolves around a point that lies between the Sun and Earth, which is extremely close t the Sun. The Sun revolves around this same point, so it appears that the Sun does not revolve around anything.

I would be very happy to see the earth as center with all planets and stars going around the earth. This is my belief as well. But while doing research in this area I came across a major problem which is the moons of Jupiter. The discovery of these moons by Galileo was the first major blow to the geocentric theory and help establish the concept of heliocentric theory. Would someone please explain how Jupiter's moons appear to revolve around Jupiter when seen through a telescope.

Hey AA, how do you think the moons of Jupiter prove heliocentricity? Jupiter's moons revolve around Jupiter and our moon revolves around us in both models. What would Jupiter's moons have to do with whether or not the Earth is spinning beneath our feet?

Jupiter's moons, if they exist as moons, would prove that there are planets and they have moons. Or that there are individual planetary bodies in the universe that have satellites going round them. This is what dealt a big blow to the geocentric theory when Galileo discovered the moons.

I'm an Indian astrologer and I know planets go round the earth. I just want info from someone who is researching this topic.

According to an ancient astronomy book of Hindus, called Surya Siddhanta, earth is not even planet, its an element, so it cannot rotate or even revolve, its fixed. The book says all stars go round earth and so do the planets.

But what are the moons of Jupiter doing going around Jupiter. Is it an optical illusion that they are going round Jupiter and not around earth as all other stars seem to. Jupiter is going round earth and so are its moons together with Jupiter. But why would they seem to go round Jupiter when seen from a telescope? Has anyone done research on this? This is what I want to know. I stopped researching this topic when I encountered this question and cannot go further till i get some explanation from someone.

This will be my first post on a site like yours, so I hope I won't make a bad impression as a new member of this society. Second of all I want to tell you I am definately not a troll or someone who is out there with an agenda to devide and conquer. Truth to me is very important.

I am not saying I am a great thinker nor a great writer or special in any case despite the fact that I graduated from highschool in the highest mode (?) our country has to offer (Holland or the Netherlands). In fact what does that even mean nowadays, especially when we are discussing material we have been taught at the same highschools we now question? What I want to say is that I am humble about my intellectual capacities and now more believe in intuition and wisodm rather than knowledge. Maybe I should not be part of this discussion at all when I am not confident aboutmy thinking, but my intuition has brought me to your blog around six months ago and it is this same intuition that is really resonating with your theories (or truth), but also needs to be satisfied by asking you this favour. Please don't feel bored or bothered by it.

(This field you are discussing is sadly also very outside of my comfort zone since I am now studying dance and I always have had problems understanding physics, quantum physics etc. and I am obviously not willing to fake any knowledge about it. So don't expect that I can add a lot of more things to the discussion.But I also don't want to take you down and say your whatever they want to call you. I hope you don't mind me talking a lot about myself, but I think I should try to picture my position as clearly as possible.)

What I want to ask you is if you could shine your light (once more) about the statement that Earth would need an inmense amount of mass and therefore an inmense gravitational pull to make things like stars and more evolve around her:

Does the fact that you didn't respond to this statement mean that you think: 'stars are not bigger than the earth or at least not as big as they say?' just like you state that the moon and the sun are just as big as eachother? (wich I find pretty logical since we can observe them being of similar volume). Or does it imply more on the field of thoughts or the ideas that nothing really evolves around anything so should subjectively choose a center? And about this field: Does this thoughtbubble not also implies that we in fact are the creators of this devinity of Earth you are granting God for? If we are to choose we are the center of everything, what than did God do? He made us so whe could make this decision?

Despite my questions, all of this makes more sense to me than "throwing around" with HUGE numbers and than afterwards make them logical by coincidence. That's not sience to me right?But also I felt I would have love to see you defend yourself just as well as you normally do as in response to the material that was stated in this post and where the question about the gravitanional pull was a part of.

Are you willing to react on this material?

Nice to read that you practise yoga. And If if all of your research about geocentrism turns out to be the truth (wich is really convincing me) than I thank you firmly in advance. I love you Eric!

Thanks for the message and cyber hug Fabian! :) As you guessed, no I don't believe stars are all distant suns with their own planetary systems as NASA heliocentrists want us to believe. Earlier I mentioned:

It has become absolutely unquestioned gospel truth that stars are suns and Earth is a planet, yet there is no proof of this anywhere, and the only "evidence" we have are images from NASA. From my research on NASA, cosmology and the fake Moon and Mars landings, it has become apparent to me that NASA is the biggest mind-control operation in existence and their whole purpose is to propagate this massive nihilistic cosmological deception. As such, I am 100% skeptical of everything that comes from NASA, just on principle, including all Hubble images and supposed video of the planets. So if you'll bare with me for a moment and assume with me that NASA is simply the Mason's latest step in propagating their heliocentric deception, the moon, Mars landings and all images they show us are CGI. If that's the case, then what evidence do we have that stars are actually distant solar systems? What evidence do we have that planets are Earth-like objects? None. It's certainly an interesting and plausible idea, but there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support it.

And no, I also don't believe that the nearest star is 4.2 light years (25 trillion miles) away. These are simply the huge numbers they need to continue their lie when people like myself point out that after hundreds of millions of miles of supposed orbital motion around the Sun every 6 months all the stars still appear in exactly the same spot they were 6 months prior.

Has anyone taken a tape-measure and checked these? You cannot confirm the distance to those lights in the sky any better than I can measure God's fingernail. The relativistic formulas they're using to come up with these ridiculously large distances are simply the huge numbers they need to account for our lack of change in position after hundreds of millions of miles of supposed rotation each year. You can prove in your backyard that the Earth has no orbital motion, but if you believe like Ben that the nearest star is "4.2 light-years" away, then that means we won't experience a single inch of parallax change even after hundreds of millions of miles of supposed annual orbit. But that's like me telling you the Horizon is 4.2 light-years away. You can't disprove it because no matter how far you travel, the Horizon still appears equally far away. So to convince you, I just have to come up with a sufficiently large number and it will account for your lack of change in perspective.

As for your questions regarding God, I don't pretend to know and don't even want to venture a guess. Thanks for the questions :) Peace

Hey AA, I've seen Jupiter and its moons through a telescope and all you can see is a big circle with a few smaller circles going past (or around) it. It's funny that this was seen as "a huge blow" to the geocentric worldview when it has no bearing on the Earth's motion. Just like Foucalt's Pendulum, the Coriolis Effect, Retrograde motion of Mars, the Tamarak Mines and these other supposed proofs of heliocentricism which don't prove either way! None of these experiments that heliocentrists claim prove their argument actually prove anything. They all fail to distinguish whether it's Earth or the aether/stars moving. Michelson, Gale, Airy, Sagnac, Kantor and others have all performed conclusive experiments which DO prove whether it's the Earth or aether moving and the "scientific" community (and everyone who tries to debate me) just ignores them! Peace

I have been thinking and maybe there is no correlation between objects orbiting an object and this object's mass and gravitaional pull.... Since these ideas are all blueprinted from sun-theory they might as well also be made up... Is there any other explanation out there that might explain why the stars are orbiting us without us being very heavy?? Magnetic fields??

Sorry for my question aboout God. It was indeed something that couldn't be awnsered. But maybe I think we should call this theory (or truth) "chosen geocentrim"or determinded geocentrism, since there is no real centre of the universe. But that's a matter of words...

Thanks for the links James, and Anon, the standard geocentric model says the Sun, Moon, Stars and Planets are affixed to the "firmament" which is the constantly revolving heavenly planetarium going around us every 24 hours. The Egyptians pictured all the celestial bodies as being carried by boats along a heavenly river. Your question about why it is this way is like asking why gravity pulls us down instead of up, or why abuse hurts instead of feels good. Scientific experiments can't tell me why, but they can show me the what... that the Earth is motionless and all celestial bodies revolve around us. Hope that helps! Peace

Ok this does sound logical when you think about it, and i could believe it, except for one thing - GRAVITY. Our gravity is said to come from the spinning of the earth. If the earth is not spinning then how do we have gravity and where does it come from?

Try spinning a wet tennis ball or any spherical object with smaller things attached to it, you'll see that spinning makes things fly off, not stick to the sphere. Try going on the Gravitron at the fair and see how the faster it spins the more you are pushed AWAY from the center of spin, not towards it. Heliocentrists will claim the huge mass of the Earth magically makes objects stick to it instead of fly off it, but they cannot show you any practical example of this. Any objects placed on a spinning sphere (no matter how massive) do not stick to the sphere but go flying off.

The experiments you are quoting, Michelson-Gale etc., none of them support a geocentric theory. They are all about the concept of an aether vs special relativity. It's completely different. The fact that you have confused them is a very serious mix-up. The idea of relative reference frames has nothing to do with Einstein and in fact goes back to the Renaissance. You need to understand forces and inertia to understand why you can't fel the earths motion. You only feel changes in speed, not the actual speed itself. That's why cars don't constantly feel like the do when you're accelerating. There is also plenty of empirical evidence that the earth rotates. Check out Foucault Pendulums. They can't be tampered with by NASA and can probably be found in a nearby museum. Also, you could grab a telescope and watch how moons orbit jupiter and not us.

I've already explained several times how Jupiter's moons and Foucalt's pendulums do not and can not prove or disprove the motion of the Earth beneath our feet. I've also addressed the Michelson-Gale experiment, the acceleration argument and basically everything in your comment. Please read through the comments section for answers to your questions. Peace

The nearer an object is to a lightsource, the larger its shadow. If the sun was about the same size as the moonEclipse's should be worldwide darkness, not just a moving shadow.In order for eclipse's to be witnessed only over a small patch of the world at a time (which they are), that means the sun must be many times further away then the moon. And as its many times further....then it must be many times larger to seem the same size.

Anthropoid populations on other worlds might be interested to know they do indeed orbit us.

They need to start whorshipping us as the most relevant object in the universe immediately.

Joking aside, how does one question the things questioned in this blog post and not question history in general?

The reason I ask is this:

If the theory of the earth centred universe is supposed to be an ancient truth, then what is up with that sticking around despite our rich history of destruction of knowledge and death penalty for dissent?

The only reason to go around and deliberately destroy everything like that is to hide the truth.

I mean, come on, are we supposed to believe that there was no concerted effort to destroy, mystify, and even demonize the ancient knowledge?

How much did we lose, for example, with the destruction of the recordings of history and everything else at Alexandria?

So why are we not feeling the movement of the atmosphere if it is precisely moving with the Earth? It surprises me that science has not answered this 'simple' and question! Please some one tell me the truth or my head will burst now

Nice try but all you are describing is a personal frame of reference. Being on earth means that it appears everything rotates around us. If you were stood on Mars for example, it would appear that the Sun, Earth and everything else rotates around Mars itself. When you look at this model from the perspective of the Sun then all of the planets orbit the Sun in predictable, simple orbits. This, logic dictates is the correct assumption.

Backed up by the observation that every planet we know rotates it is also the logical position to deduce that our planet also rotates.

By the way, a very simple experiment to demonstrate that the earth spins is; weigh an object at one of the poles and then weigh the same object again at the equator. There is a difference between the two values caused by the spin of the earth at these points.

Interesting blog. Sorry to ruin your little conspiracy theory. The distance to stars is actually not made up, but computed using a very simple method called triangulation. Read more here for example:http://science.howstuffworks.com/question224.htm

If you look at some specific stars today and the same stars in six months at the same time of day, they are not in the exact same spot, but have actually wobbled a tiny bit! While other stars are in the very same spot. This is easily explained by stars having different distance to earth. How do you explain this? Or do you deny this fact?

George Ellis, a famous cosmologist who once wrote a book with Steven Hawking, said in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds."

Wow ! This is news to me. I have researching all about esoteric symbolism and numerology in religion for several months but to stumble upon this is by far the most impacting revelation should it be true.

However I do have an answer ( I think ) why if you hover in a helicopter you will not get from a to b and also why we don't feel the earts motion. It's because of gravity. Also the earth is massive compared to us so we are not going to feel this motion because of how huge the earth is. As much as I would like to believe in geocentricity I think the heliocentric theory is the correct one.

If the earth does not rotate around the sun, then where does the 365 day year fit in? Are they hiding any thing else, like the different calendars that they have given us? What is the purpose of keeping us all deceived, about this and every thing else in todays world? What is the purpose of keeping the masses so stupid?

I'm thinking you're not taking into consideration "mass" and " speed" .and other variables. . Yes.. If jumping off of a horse while the horse is moving one way and I the other would be different ..the reason is our masses are quite similar relative to our weights on such a small scale, and there of course will be a difference because mathematically our masses are quite closely related...plus, I was actually part of the horse while touching it with the speed of the horse to begin with....But the mass of the earth is enormous... And so, a plane's resistance, going against the rotation of the earth, would be so unbelievably small that it would not be unnoticeable in "time"..and it is "off of the earth as well..not attached to its gravity and has such a minuscule amount of mass compared to the earth that it's subatomic in comparison....Plus think about this.... If I'm running outside of a slow moving train I'm going about the same speed... But once I jump onto that train, I am now different to its relativity... I am now " part of that train".. I am stationary, yet moving WItH the train...and I can run just as fast towards the front of the train as I can towards the back of the train in the same amount of time :-). Doesn't mean the train is stationary because I can now run in either direction just as fast :-)

I'm so bummed cuz I wrote out a whole thing and I don't think I clicked the right button and it got deleted? ***sigh***Anyway, Here is an easy explanation... For one, the earth has an enormous mass! We as people and of course horses do not... We are relatively minuscule mass in comparison to the enormous earth mass. So if I jump off one way or the other from the horse there will be a difference and many variables why...The thing with the airplane is that it is not touching the earth...it has a minuscule mass compared to the earth as well, it also has it's own velocity and It's mass is so small that there will be relatively little difference in either direction. Think about it like this.... I am running along side a slow moving train.... I am going the same speed... But when I jump on I am now stationary, yet "moving" at the speed of the train at the same time. I am "moving" while the train moves in space and time, but I am also stationary... AND I can run to the front Of the train and also to the back of the train at the same speed and get there at the same time with little difference unless the train goes up or down a slope and then gravity would come into more play.... There are scientific connections between mass, speed, relativity That pertain to why the earth is rotating but we don't feel it. We are subatomic particles relative to the earths mass.... Just as when we humans walk around, our subatomic particles that make up our mass are not being blown out of us.... They are connected to us and our gravity and move with us fluidly..........if a bird was flying outside of a train by an open window and then flew in, it would continue to go the speed of the train... But if it landed on a seat railing, it could move around as it wanted.. It became part of the train, it's motion, its relativity to all of it and stopped its velocity with the train.. Now, if it wanted to exit the train, it would have a hard time, because it's momentum of speed has halted and so it could be blown back if it went out the window again from a speed of 0 .... Anyway.... Your theory interested me but can be unfortunately debunked by what science has proven. But I so liked reading it and you are a very smart and great person! Xo...I hope to read more if you have any other ideas... My brain loves to hear other points of view :-). Blessings! Xo

Ok.. So I read a bunch of comments and then retorts... I have 2 problems... One: your reference to Adolfo Hitler who was of course a lunatic who sounded smart and had a very high IQ... But still a sociopath with only his own self interest and delusional aspirations.... And then the comment about the stars moving at the same rate in a 24 hour period. Stars are not "moving" ... Those stars burned out and do not exist anymore... It's only their light that finally reached our optical nerve endings over millions of years...and we are moving. They move at the same rate because of the intricate amount of rotatings of everything! In a beautiful cosmic mathematical dance. The math that goes into these calculations is staggering... And not something just invented by NASA. :-)

Pss... About Polaris :-)"The North Star, also known as Polaris, is known to stay fixed in our sky. It marks the location of the sky’s north pole, the point around which the whole sky turns. That’s why you can always use Polaris to find the direction north.

But the North Star does move. If you took its picture, you’d find that it makes its own little circle around the exact point of the north celestial pole every day. That’s because the North Star is really offset a little – by about three-quarters of a degree – from celestial north.

Where does this movement – or in Polaris’ case, lack of movement – come from ? Earth spins under the sky once a day. Earth’s spin causes the sun in the daytime – and the stars at night – to rise in the east and set in the west. But the North Star is a special case. Because it lies almost exactly above Earth’s northern axis, it’s like the hub of a wheel. It doesn’t rise or set. Instead, it appears to stay put in the northern "

Plus...why would it be against God or Jesus to have the earth be rotating or not if God created everything? Just a question :-)

With a stationary earth, how do you explain pole shift? I have read a school of thought suggesting that during pole shifts, the earth stops rotating, and I have read that the earth has at one time turned in the opposite direction.

You feel weightless a moment in the elevator because when you jump, you are momentarily not falling as fast as the elevator. The military uses the same principle in its weightlessness simulator, which is just a large airplane put into a steep dive. Passengers are still falling toward earth, but relative to the airplane they seem to be floating.

A descending elevator isn't in free fall and it doesn't go fast enough to endanger anyone. If you were in a crashing airplane falling at, say, 200 miles per hour and you jumped just before impact, you would still be falling at about 190 mph, but only prolonging your life for a fraction of a second because you will hit the earth just a teeny bit after the airplane, but still at very high speed.

This is why the internet can sometimes be bad...idiots like this guy make websites like this without any knowledge of physics, besides using buzzwords that he found while googling physics for 15 minutes.

This entire page is easily and quickly debunked by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which simply states that if you have two objects and one is moving and nothing else, it is impossible to tell which is moving (We've known this since 1915). Let's say you're in a spaceship orbiting the Earth. If you toss a ball up in the air while inside, it would go up and down in the same way it would if the ship was standing still. By this guy's logic the ball should accelerate toward the back of the vehicle when tossed. Next time you're a passenger in a moving car, toss something up and down in your hand and this website's entire argument falls apart. I think it's explained very well with animations in a video you can see if you click right HERE.

Some of you guys don't seem to get it.When you fire a gun from the side of a moving object the bullet (once it leaves the barrel) flies INDEPENDENT of the moving object from which it was launched. Get it? It does NOT keep moving at the speed of the platform from which it was launched. It is as though you were just standing at that point and shooting.

There wouldn't be a slight effect from a turning earth, there would be a HUGE effect!Any projectile when fired anything but due east and west would curve.And a bullet fired at a target a mile away due south (at my lattitude 880 yards per second 'rotation alleged'- North America) would be about 1600 yards off to the side from where you aimed!!!!!

When I snipe I need to be aware of a 5 mph wind that will greatly effect the flight of my projectile. But I in NO WAY need to EVEN CONSIDER the direction I am facing when I shoot. Even though it should affect my aim by almost A MILE!!!The wind does not 'catch' the bullet and carry it at 1000mph in whatever direction I am aiming + or - the 5mph i am adjusting for... the momentum of the barrel of the gun does not push the bullet to the side lol or we would all see uneven wear on the left side of the barrel of our guns from always shooting North as the earth pushed the bullets to the side at 1000mph. AND we would see different wear and tear depending on lattitude. Guns in the Arctic theoretically would last longer as less rotational force would be on them.Ive shot guns in my back yard in the same direction for over 40 years. They wear out evenly.

You guys really that bad at math?How do you not get this?

Once in the air the projectile is FREE from the ground plane. It is not being 'blown' by the wind at 1000mph to hold its course lol. It is cutting right through it. That is what bullets do best. A 5mph wind will move my bullet but NOT AT 5mph.. lol just like a 1000mph wind would move my bullet but not at 1000mph and certainly not instantly as would be required.

It will follow from point A to point B as though you are still standing at the point from which you fired it. THAT IS WHAT BULLETS DO TEST IT YOURSELF. I have.

The Earth does NOT rotate or move AT ALL.A bullet easily proves this.Therefore the Earth CANNOT be a round ball floating in space OR even attached to ANYTHING that is moving AT ALL.

Therefore the stars are rotating above us as the ground is not.Since the stars rotate, and both rotation points can be seen at the same time from the equator, then the Earth CANNOT be FLAT and on some infinite plane of ground.

It MUST therefore be a cave. We are inside it. Pushed to the sides instead sucked to the ground as would be on a round ball.not a big leap of imagination required here peoples. The Sun is much smaller than you probably realize and runs on electricity as recently proven by Harvard University. Gravity, Time, Magnetism and Electricity are all very interrelated. And every crater is perfectly round no impact ever came at a 45 degree angle or 60 degree angle to ANY celestial object EVER (cause they were made by electricity. There is SO MUCH evidence and PROOF, Wake up Neo.Math is math. Truth is truth.

Therefore the ENTIRE UNIVERSE (or at least a mind bogglingly large amount of it) is ONE SOLID NON-MOVING CAVE SYSTEM. With some mighty big caves that have their own Suns in them. I would guess someone long ago added the light for us as they knew how to do it.The rest easily naturally formed by a 'big zap' as opposed to a bang. theelectricuniverse.com and wildheretic.com for more info on that.

Now you know where you live and you know the best news you will ever know.

The way out is DOWN. And depending on what side of the Earth cave you are on you can find better worlds in that direction that would be amazed that you found a way out. you would be a hero and a champion amongst your kind. Then they would come and make sure none of the rest of us can get out that way hahaha

Great effort Eric. Our ancient hindus also believed that earth is flat and have written lot of texts regarding the same. Ironically, modern hindus are trying to forcefully interpret the ancient texts to fall into the heliocentric model so as to be in sync with modern science and prove that our ancestors also thought 'scientifically'. Srimad-Bhagavatam talks extensively on geocentric model. I have long stopped believing about what we see and what we hear. For example, as a kid, I used to think fluoride is good for health, but the truth is that the Illuminati conspired to add fluoride in drinking water in US (in 1950's) to retard the population over a period of decades so as to control the masses easily. Flouride calcifies the pineal gland and makes people less intelligent over a period of time.

The concept of earth rotating at high speed and we riding on it is a classic free mason concept of taking the masses for a ride.

The proof that the earth is wobbling on it's axis is the climate change we are observing. The deviation of the jetstream. unless you think the whole universe can shift 9 to 17 degrees a years that would actually mean that some parts of the universe are moving way faster than light.

"For instance, if both the Earth and its atmosphere are spinning 1,000 miles per hour West to East, then why don't pilots need to make 1,000 mph compensation acceleration when flying East to West? If thousand mile per hour atmosphere is constantly flowing Eastward, why don't North/South bound pilots have to set diagonal courses to compensate? If the atmosphere is constantly being pulled along with the Earth's rotation, then why can I feel the slightest Westward breeze but not the Earth's 1,000 mile per hour Eastward spin?"

When you're inside a plane traveling at 800 km/h (222,2 meters per second). Is it harder to walk forward than backwards in the cabin. If you jump and stays in the air for 0,3 seconds - do you land 0,3 x 222,2 = 66,7 meters further back (or hit the wall in the back of the cabin). If a ball is dropped 1 meter above the floor, the fall takes about 0,45 seconds with the 9,8 m/s free fall acceleration - wich means it will hit the wall in the back of the cabin before it hits the floor (even if you're standing in the front of the plane). If the cabin was long enough it would land on the floor 100 meters (328 ft) behind where you drop it.

That sounds stupid? Then why would the earth movement be different? Also the effect of the rotation is just neglictable - it's just like make a 360° turn that takes 24 hours

At least learn somethin about physics before argiung about things like this - this was just rediculous

As per Bible, no where it has mentioned that God had given power in man to invent things that challenge God's creation- say for example birds. (eg: plane), things that can suspend in space (eg: satellites & space lab), distant communication (eg: telephones), recording past moments & sounds (eg: videos & audio), eradicating communicable diseases that God has created upon his wrath, deflecting a meteriorite from its trajectory, creating test tube babies through IVF. I believe all these things do not happen. Everything is a myth. The current science had made us blind to deviate from the path of God's words. I believe planes cannot fly, satellites do not remain in space, distant communication is a myth, moments cannot be recorded, disease like smallpox cannot be eradicated and finally, test tube babies cannot be made. All these things cannot happen as per the holy teachings. But, people are deceived by the current science. What we see is not what really is. We are bound by myth. I support your post.

"Every experiment ever designed to detect the motion of the earth has failed to detect earth's motion and/or distinguish it from relative counter motion of the universe." - --> Youre already assuming that the Earth doesnt spin WITH the rest of the Universe, rather that the rest of the Universe spins with a motion counter relative to the Earth. You need to PROVE this before making such an assumption. At least come up with a theory. Whether the Earth is flat, round, moving, or stationary, has no bearing on the rest of the Universe's motion relative to the Earth being in motion. Under this assumption, any experiment to detect the Earths motion would immediately be untrue, because you would immediately attribute it to the rest of the universe acting on Earth. Focaults Pendulum wouldnt move unless the Earth is spinning. The Heavens wouldnt put any noticeable force on the Pendulum itself. Gravity? Flat Earthers argue against Gravity? Inertia. You all argue against Inertia as well. You cant argue against Gravity and Inertia and then use it when its convenient. You say theres a force outside Earth that would act on the Pendulum? WHAT IMAGINARY FORCE are you talking about? No. Obviously the only logical answer is that the Earth is spinning.

OMG, the person who said ,"Some of you dont get it," and then proceeded to explain Air Dynamics using his Gun story is quite wrong. If youre in a train, and you stand at the front of the train, and fired it to the back, and then stand at the back and fire the gun to the front, it will take the EXACT same time for the Bullet to hit the front and the back. The speed of the train is NEGLIGENT relative to the Gun being fired INSIDE the train, BECAUSE everything is moving at the exact same speed. The speed of the train compared to the speed of the bullet only becomes influential when the Gun is fired OUTSIDE The train. Inside the train, it has no effect.

Please do research. If two people stand on the surface of the earth and shoot at each other at the same time, they both get hit at the same time (assuming same gun, bullet). This is true even though the earth is whipping through space at a zillion miles per hour.What you are investigating here is relative velocity. If you stand at the front of a train that's moving fast and you shoot a bullet perpendicular to the train, the bullet will stay in line with the barrel of the gun as it flies away from the train. From a stationary observer above, the path of the gun and the path of the bullet will make a V.

The ball drop thing only applies to a closed vehicle. Try to do this in a convertible with opened roof. You have to adjust the angle of the ball thrown up in the air to make sure, it lands back in the car and not on the street behind you. And it´s not only the airstream. So, not feeling the earth moving IS a point, that suggests earth and atmosphere exist in a closed environment. Which means there is a "hull" or "shield" or something around the earth? Then the plane/flighttime/atmosphere moving with earth- scenario makes sense. And don´t tell me the vacuum of outer space is the "hull"?!Maybe there is a "ceiling" if you just fly high enough. And if this way up ceiling has the stars and moon and sun attached on the inner side...oh, wait...there we go again. But actually, who knows? Remember the ending of the first Men in Black, where the alien collects it´s marbles and one of it is us?

Hello: Don here. Just read your entire blog post here and would like to point out that the October 23, 2013 post with the link to the video "Earth Form Space - Clearly The Earth Doesn't Move" that the cloud cover does change from the first day to the second day. Take a screen capture of the full earth on the first day then another one on the second day, and you can clearly see that the cloud cover in the northern hemisphere has changed from one day to the next. Same thing in the lower right side. Also, when the transition to night occurs, there are two stars visible on the right side of the earth that do not move. Just thought I'd share that.

Also, I looked at one of the links regarding the fake moon landings. The moon landing fakes seem more than plausible, especially since the new scientific community is trying to figure out how to shield the next manned missions from radiation (thought they figured that out in the 60's - LOL). However, I take exception to saying that satellites are myths. If so, how do you account for the video linked above, that fact the directTV and Dish Network satellite receivers must be precisely pointed to the sky to get a signal, google earth and the GPS satellite constellations used for precision navigation -- these are not land-based - they are physical working satellites in orbit. Same goes for the international space station -- you can see it on a clear night with a telescope -- its up there orbiting the earth.